[Users] reply-to-list annoyance

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 09:12:32 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:22:57 +0100
> Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:29:36 +0100, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン)
> > wrote:
> > > And keeping the ability to have list+origin sender is important,
> > > as some ML allow posting from non-member, who you want to copy
> > > when replying ;)
> > 
> > Solutions:
> > 1. "All" invokes mailing list replies and if the list ID is missing,
> > then it replies to "all".
> 
> All means all. There's already a "reply to list" functionality.

Yesno, it's possible to have the reply to list option, when there's a
list ID, so that the reply gets only send to the list, but as soon as
the list ID is missing, it's send to all. This would solved all the
issues we experience with "'Reply' invokes mailing list reply". IOW
"All" could also be for "everybody subscribed".

> > 2. The sender who isn't subscribed to an open mailing list adds a
> > Reply-To.
> 
> The sender who isn't subscribed is a rude, self-centered fool who
> deserves no technological help with his bad practices.

But as we experienced, it's possible that a user by accident sent
duplicates.

So for example Debian and FreeBSD mailing lists have a wrong policy, by
allowing to send to the list, without being subscribed? Some lists even
have a moderator who check those mails.

JFTR, the way Claws works now, it has more advantages for open mailing
lists, than for mailman lists, were you have to be subscribed,
regarding the way Reply-To is used.

> The whole thing's pretty simple. The "Reply to List" functionality
> should refuse to do anything if there's no List-Post. Extra credit if
> the button or menu item can be grayed out.

Ok.

What behaviour do you recommend for "Reply-To"? Maybe a window that
pops up and asks, if it should send to the list only or to the list and
to "Reply-To", with an option "remember this selection and don't ask
again"?!

Regards,
Ralf