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

[Jed Brown]

Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

> Again 'minority usage. Since one would not care about following list
> except for 'when they post' - They would filter list traffic into a
> different folder - and look at that folder only when they post to that
> list.

The problem is that you have to monitor _everything_ and you have to
draw a line after sending a message when you decide to stop paying
attention (changing your filters or not "checking that folder").  With
reply-all convention, you just email and rest assured that all messages
relevant to you will continue to Cc you.

> using petsc-maint is fine. But here you are suggesting using
> petsc-maint should be discouraged.

Yes, the reason is that our effort does not scale well and has no
historical value when it happens on petsc-maint.  On an archived and
searchable mailing list, we can refer to old discussions and it's more
open in that people who are not "core" developers can participate.

> I doubt most users know about subscribe-without-delivery option of
> mailing lists. And I think most users think petsc-users as not a
> mailing list - but as petsc-maint.

Hmm, I would think that most users know petsc-users is a mailing list.

> I agree this usage is not supported currently. [but I don't know if
> that automatic-cc-subscribe-as-without-delivery is possible]

Does the list configuration have an API?  If so, we could have a bot
monitoring petsc-users email and subscribing (without delivery)
addresses that are Cc'd in approved messages?

> the whole argument is more archives and email-without subscribing. I
> don't buy the stuff about "subscribe with delivery" or reply-to is
> breaking stuff.

What part don't you buy?  If someone writes to the list, "reply-all"
from another list subscriber goes only to the list.  That means they
can't distinguish mail that they are interested in from all the other
stuff on the list.  I hypothesize that a lot of people write petsc-maint
because they don't like the firehose implied by using petsc-users.
Turning off munging fixes the firehose problem.

The reason to prefer petsc-users when possible is searchability/archives.

> And the cost is more replies going to individuals.

We already have this on petsc-maint, but asking for the author to resend
(which teaches them) is more justifiable on an archived list because it
provides understandable value.

> And some extra spam. 

When you approve a message, are you whitelisting the thread or the
author?  If the author, it's equivalent to subscribe-without-delivery.
Maybe that is good enough?

> And huge logs to subscribers. [and advertise petsc-users as support
> list - not mailing list].

Scrubbing large attachments is fine as long as we can deliver them to
people who opt in, or at least those who are currently on petsc-maint.

> I don't know if there is an option for that. Currently all moderators
> get such emails.

There is a difference between list "moderator" and "admin", right?  Can
the current petsc-maint group be labeled as "moderator" so that we get
the attachments?

> But the user has to set the correct topic in the subject line when
> they post? Again transfering decision from 'use petsc-users vs petsc
> maint' to use subject: 'installation' vs 'bugreport' vs 'general'.

We can just add [installation] to the subject line when we reply so that
users don't see the reply threads for untagged messages.  The main
disadvantage would be that it would look like we weren't replying to
those messages.  This may not be worthwhile.