GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 624204
Reply should go to List-Post address if present
Last modified: 2010-07-30 10:06:37 UTC
Many mailing-list users don't know about the Reply-To-List command (Ctrl-L) and use Reply-To-All. However people sometimes forget and use Reply instead of Reply-To-All. This requires manual cleaning up by the receiver. To reduce the frequency of list replies going to the message author instead of the list address, Ctrl-R should do the same as Ctrl-L when replying to a message that contains a List-Post header. There should also be a Reply-To-Author command for the rare case when the reply should be directed to the message Reply-To field, presumably the author's personal address. This would have the desired effect on lists which follow RFC-2822 and don't do "Reply-To munging". For those that do munge the Reply-To field, a reply to the author would require some editing, but that's already the case with these lists so nothing is lost.
Couple questions: - If we do this, then "Reply to List" becomes redundant and will go away, along with Ctrl+L. Are you okay with that? - Should "Reply to All" act similarly? That is, have it place the List-Post address in To: and move the sender's address to Cc:? Further thoughts: Menu-wise, "Reply to Sender" would change to "Reply to List" when the highlighted message has a List-Post header. Also, the "Reply to Author" option would not appear in pop-up menus -- only in the Message menu.
I'm OK with Ctrl-L going away. I often find myself hitting Ctrl-L when just replying to a personal message, so having a simple Ctrl-R that covers both situations seems better. I considered Reply-To-All. The current behaviour is to reply to the sender and CC the list. For consistency with Reply to Sender I think it should reply to the list and CC the sender, as you suggest. Regarding the menu, changing the entry would be great. I wasn't sure if it was easy to do, which is why I didn't propose it. And not having a shortcut or pop-up item for Reply To Author is fine as well. So basically I'm on board for all points.
This is a rare case where I'd actually like to see more votes on this proposal from interested users -- here or on the mailing list -- just to get a better sense that it's widely supported (taking into account the usual knee-jerk negative reaction from some users when anything changes).
(In reply to comment #3) > This is a rare case where I'd actually like to see more votes on this proposal > from interested users -- here or on the mailing list -- just to get a better > sense that it's widely supported (taking into account the usual knee-jerk > negative reaction from some users when anything changes). I'm OK with that. I don't suppose there's a procedure for this, but I'll bring it up on the list and ask people to comment (pro or con).
Couple comparisons with other mailers: Thunderbird's reply options work exactly like ours currently do: Reply replies to the sender-only, Reply to List replies to the List-Post address, Reply to All replies to the sender and CCs the List-Post address and any other recipients. Claws Mail is a little more interesting: they have dedicated options for Reply to Sender / Reply to All / Reply to List, plus a generic Reply option that changes behavior depending on whether it's a mailing list posting or not -- similar to what's being proposed here. Trying to get my hands on some other mailers for comparison.
Please don't do this. It's just like Reply-To munging, just in a different place. As it is, when reading a list message I have a *choice*: - I can hit Ctrl-R to reply to the sender in *private*. - I can hit Ctrl-Shift-R to reply to the sender and the list. - I can hit Ctrl-L to reply to the list. If you make any of those three key-combinations do something *different* then you are taking away my choices, just like those evil people who set Reply-To: on mailing lists to try to trick me into sending mail publicly that should have been private. Making the "private reply" option Ctrl-R actually send a message to the public list is a *particularly* bad idea. Sending a private message when you meant it to be public is easy to fix. Sending a public message when you meant it to be private is *much* worse. It isn't acceptable for the "reply to all" option to omit the sender of the mail I'm replying to, either. They may have *posted* to the mailing list, but that doesn't mean that they're *subscribed* to it, or that they ever actually read that list unless someone brings it to their attention. It would be extremely impolite to drop them from Cc when I'm replying to them, so I *never* do that unless they explicitly ask me to. Again, it's about the failure modes: it's much easier for someone to cope with seeing two copies of my reply -- one in their inbox and one in the list folder -- than it is for them to cope with receiving *no* copies of my reply. Please don't break my mailer just for the benefit of those who can't be bothered to use theirs properly. I *know* it's hard work to lift the right hand off the mouse to reach for the Ctrl-L key combination rather than Ctrl-R or Ctrl-Shift-R which can be used with the left hand, but with a bit of exercise and determination I'm sure you'll manage :)
Currently, the 'reply to list' function does nothing if the list headers aren't detected. Perhaps we could make it do the same as 'reply to all' in that case, and then the people who want this feature could just bind the 'reply to list' function to the Ctrl-Shift-R keystroke?
Created attachment 165799 [details] [review] Enable "press Ctrl-Shift-R when you want Ctrl-L" option. As discussed elsewhere, we should also change the 'Reply to All' button and menu items to read 'Reply to List' when there's a List-Post: header, if this option is set.
(In reply to comment #5) > Couple comparisons with other mailers: > > Thunderbird's reply options work exactly like ours currently do: Reply replies > to the sender-only, Reply to List replies to the List-Post address, Reply to > All replies to the sender and CCs the List-Post address and any other > recipients. > > Claws Mail is a little more interesting: they have dedicated options for Reply > to Sender / Reply to All / Reply to List, plus a generic Reply option that > changes behavior depending on whether it's a mailing list posting or not -- > similar to what's being proposed here. > > Trying to get my hands on some other mailers for comparison. Kmail works as I proposed. That's where I got the idea.
(In reply to comment #6) > Making the "private reply" option Ctrl-R actually send a message to the public > list is a *particularly* bad idea. Sending a private message when you meant it > to be public is easy to fix. Sending a public message when you meant it to be > private is *much* worse. That's a valid objection. Of course the toolbar and menu will both say Reply To List, but I take the point. > It isn't acceptable for the "reply to all" option to omit the sender of the > mail I'm replying to, either. They may have *posted* to the mailing list, but > that doesn't mean that they're *subscribed* to it, or that they ever actually > read that list unless someone brings it to their attention. It would be > extremely impolite to drop them from Cc when I'm replying to them, so I *never* > do that unless they explicitly ask me to. Again, it's about the failure modes: > it's much easier for someone to cope with seeing two copies of my reply -- one > in their inbox and one in the list folder -- than it is for them to cope with > receiving *no* copies of my reply. That's not what is proposed. Reply To All would CC the author (see Comment 2). > Please don't break my mailer just for the benefit of those who can't be > bothered to use theirs properly. Please don't make me deal with people who can't be bothered to use theirs properly and send personal mail when they mean to send list mail. > I *know* it's hard work to lift the right hand off the mouse to reach for the > Ctrl-L key combination rather than Ctrl-R or Ctrl-Shift-R which can be used > with the left hand, but with a bit of exercise and determination I'm sure > you'll manage :) The problem isn't the key combo, it's the cognitive effort to remember which to do in each situation. IMHO the common case should be the easy one. I'm assuming that the common case on a mailing list is to reply to the list, so that should be the default action.
(In reply to comment #7) > Currently, the 'reply to list' function does nothing if the list headers aren't > detected. > > Perhaps we could make it do the same as 'reply to all' in that case, and then > the people who want this feature could just bind the 'reply to list' function > to the Ctrl-Shift-R keystroke? Making Reply To List turn into Reply To All when no list headers are present is not a bad alternative. I don't see the need for changing the keystroke binding since Ctrl-L would Just Work.
From reading the mailing list today it sounds like we're a long way from consensus about this. And every other mailer program I've looked at handles mailing list replies differently. How about this for a less disruptive alternative: Keep the current actions the same, but if you click Reply on a message that has a List-Post header the composer window shows an inline message: You are composing a private reply to a mailing list posting. [ Dismiss ]
[Copied from the mailing list] I've rethought this proposal in the light of comments by several people, particularly David Woodhouse. This proposal supersedes the original and seeks to minimize trauma and give some extra funcionality: When the message being replied to is *not* a list message (i.e. the List-* headers -- specifically List-Post -- are not present), then everything works as now, except that Reply To List (Ctrl-L) has the same effect as Reply To All (Shift-Ctrl-R). When List-Post is present, Ctrl-L has the same effect as currently, i.e. it replies to the List-Post address only. In all cases, Reply To Sender (Ctrl-R) works exactly as now. A new Reply To Author action (no shortcut) replies only to the message originator, even when the message is from a munged list. Munged lists are detected by comparing the Reply-To header with the List-Post header (note that the former is an address while the latter is a URI). If they don't match, do the same as Ctrl-R. If they do match, ignore Reply-To and do the same as Ctrl-R.
(In reply to comment #12) > From reading the mailing list today it sounds like we're a long way from > consensus about this. And every other mailer program I've looked at handles > mailing list replies differently. > > How about this for a less disruptive alternative: > > Keep the current actions the same, but if you click Reply on a message that has > a List-Post header the composer window shows an inline message: > > You are composing a private reply to a mailing list posting. [ Dismiss ] Fine if it works correctly for both munged and non-munged lists (i.e. for a munged list the warning should not appear). However there's no reason not to do this *and* adopt the "Ctrl-L == Sh-Ctrl-R for non-list replies" idea. I'd also like to keep the Reply To Author notion. This is useful for munged lists even though it isn't for the others.
Created attachment 165818 [details] [review] private list reply warning (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #12) > > How about this for a less disruptive alternative: > > > > Keep the current actions the same, but if you click Reply on a message that has > > a List-Post header the composer window shows an inline message: > > > > You are composing a private reply to a mailing list posting. [ Dismiss ] The attached patch implements that. > Fine if it works correctly for both munged and non-munged lists (i.e. for a > munged list the warning should not appear). I'm not too bothered about that -- the user can still press the *correct* button if they don't want to see the warning. Just because a broken list has overridden the "reply to author" function so that it replies to the list, that's no excuse for the user to be still pressing that "reply to author" button, when they mean to reply to the list. If you want to provide an incremental patch which does that though, I certainly have no objection. > I'd also like to keep the Reply To Author notion. This is useful for munged > lists even though it isn't for the others. Yeah, that would be really useful. Especially if we make the normal 'reply' action do it (perhaps optionally). After all, the normal 'reply' action *is* supposed to be 'reply to sender'.
After extensive discussion we have settled on the following improvements: For the benefit of novice (or inattentive) users, we've implemented nag pop-ups which warn you in certain circumstances: - You did 'reply to all' on a non-list message to lots of people. - You did a private 'reply' on a list message, so you're replying only to the sender, not to the list. (i.e. You may have hit the wrong button). http://david.woodhou.se/reply-nag.png - You did a private 'reply' on a list message, but the list has a Reply-To: header which is redirecting your reply back to the list. (i.e. You may have hit the *right* button, but the list is trying to override your choice). For the benefit of those who want to reply to the List-Post: address which happens to be in the *one* copy of the mail they're looking at right now, we've changed the 'Reply To All' button in the toolbar into a 'Group Reply' button. It now has a drop-down menu like the Forward button does, offering both 'Reply to List' and Reply to All' functions. The default behaviour if you just click the button can be configured. http://david.woodhou.se/evo-group-reply.png Since there are already clearly defined 'Reply to Sender', 'Reply to All' and 'Reply to List' options in the Message menu, each with separate associated keystrokes, it doesn't seem necessary to make changes to those. Suggestions for further improvement are welcomed.
(In reply to comment #2) > I considered Reply-To-All. The current behaviour is to reply to the sender and > CC the list. For consistency with Reply to Sender I think it should reply to > the list and CC the sender, as you suggest. I'd still like to have this, so list headers aren't lost when you use Reply to All.
(In reply to comment #17) > I'd still like to have this, so list headers aren't lost when you use Reply to > All. Um, that's purely a cosmetic change -- why would it make any difference to list headers? The current behaviour, when you reply-all to a message I sent to a list, is: To: dwmw2 Cc: list If it changes to "reply to the list and Cc then sender" as suggested, then you just flip those round to: To: list Cc: dwmw2 The To: and Cc: headers are purely cosmetic; the message is sent to precisely the *same* recipients using the same SMTP commands (RCPT TO:<list>, RCPT TO:<dwmw2>). What changes? I'll still have list headers on the message I receive through the list, and not have list headers on the message that lands in my INBOX.
Closing this as FIXED.