[petsc-users] Mailing list reply-to munging (was Any changes in ML usage between 3.1-p8 -> 3.3-p6?)

[Satish Balay]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Jed Brown wrote:

> John Doe sends email to petsc-users and the mailing list rewrites
> Reply-To back to the list.  Now any user hits reply-all and their mailer
> gives them a message that replies *only* to petsc-users, dropping the
> original author.  This is a problem,

Its a problem only if the author is not subscribed.

> and only a few mailers have a "when
> From and Reply-To do not agree, assume this is mailing list munging and
> disregard the intent of the Reply-To field (RFC 2822) by also replying
> to the address found in From" feature.

> In other words, any mailer that interprets the Reply-To field as its
> intended "instead of" semantics rather than "in addition to" will drop
> the original author, meaning lost replies for people that are not
> subscribed or have delivery disabled.

Or remove option 'subscribe-but-do-not-deliver' for our usage of
'Reply-To: list'

> Perhaps a middle ground would be to have the list copy the From header
> over to Reply-to (if it doesn't already exist) and then _add_ the list
> address to Reply-to.  That still isn't quite right when cross-posting,
> but it would allow us to advertise "subscribe with delivery off and ask
> questions on the list" or even "mail the list without subscribing"
> instead of "always write petsc-maint if you can't be bothered to filter
> the high-volume list".

Earlier in the thread you've supported: reminder emails to folks doing
'reply' instead of 'reply-all:' as an acceptable thing. [and this
happens a few times a day]. But here a reply of 'use petsc-maint'
instead of subscribe-but-do-not-deliver with petsc-users' is suggested
not good. [which happens so infrequently - except for configure.log
sutff].

And I fail to see how 'e-mail petsc-maint without subscribing is not
good - whereas 'email petsc-users without subscribing is a great
feature'. [yeah you get archives on petsc-users - but I don't think
uses are as much concerened about that.]

And I'll submit - its easier for most folks to send email to
petsc-maint instead of figuring out 'subscribe-but-donot-deliver stuff
on petsc-users'. [Yeah 'expert' mailing list users might expect
"subscribe with delivery" workflow to work.]


Perhaps the problem here is - I view petsc-users and petsc-dev as
public mailing lists - and primary purpose of public mailing lists is
all to all communication mechanism. [so subscription/ reply-to make
sense to me.]  And petsc-maint as the longstanding
non-subscribe/support or any type of conversation e-mail
to-petsc-developers.

But most use petsc-users [and some view it] as a support e-mail adress
[with searchable archives]. If thats what it it - then
no-subscribe-post or subscribe-but-do-not-deliver stuff would be the
primary thing - and recommending that would make sense. And then we
should be accepting build logs on it as well - and not worry about
flooding users mailboxes iwth them. [compressed as openmpi list
recommends]

[what about petsc-dev? some use it as reaching petsc-developers - not
petsc development discussions. And what about petsc-maint? redirect to
petsc-users and have petsc-developers an non-ambiguous place for
non-public e-mails to petsc-developers?]

Satish