reply-to header

reply-to header

[Xavier]

Afaik the absence of that header is the reason that the reply button
in mail clients or in gmail answers to the sender rather than to the
mailing list.
Does anyone know why that header is not included ?
I consider it a must have for any mailing list, without reply-to it's
quite impractical.
Or is everyone used to use reply-all or something, which includes the
ML in CC, and no one does the same mistake than me ?
Maybe the problem is just me, as I only used mailing lists that filled
reply-to correctly before.

Re: reply-to header

[Marcin Slusarz]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:00:57PM +0100, Xavier wrote:
> Afaik the absence of that header is the reason that the reply button
> in mail clients or in gmail answers to the sender rather than to the
> mailing list.
> Does anyone know why that header is not included ?
> I consider it a must have for any mailing list, without reply-to it's
> quite impractical.

and what about people who are not subscribed? with "reply-to" header
would "reply" still cc them?

> Or is everyone used to use reply-all or something, which includes the
> ML in CC, and no one does the same mistake than me ?

i always reply-to-all, because...

> Maybe the problem is just me, as I only used mailing lists that filled
> reply-to correctly before.

... I have an opposite experience, but maybe it's just me ;)

Re: reply-to header

[Erik Auerswald]

Hi,

Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:00:57PM +0100, Xavier wrote:
>   
>> Afaik the absence of that header is the reason that the reply button
>> in mail clients or in gmail answers to the sender rather than to the
>> mailing list.
>> Does anyone know why that header is not included ?
>> I consider it a must have for any mailing list, without reply-to it's
>> quite impractical.
>>     
>
> and what about people who are not subscribed? with "reply-to" header
> would "reply" still cc them?
>   
No, it would omit them. Thus for open mailing lists no reply-to header 
should be used. At least some ML software can be configured to remove 
duplicates (i.e. don't send message to recipients in CC). Of course the 
MUA's "reply all" functionality should be used when working with open MLs.

Some MUAs (e.g. mutt) have a "list reply" functionality that can be used 
to send to the ML only.

Br,
Erik

Re: reply-to header

[Xavier]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Erik Auerswald
<auerswal-4UQ70Bntwr2x0/aPbc6oMbNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> No, it would omit them. Thus for open mailing lists no reply-to header
> should be used. At least some ML software can be configured to remove
> duplicates (i.e. don't send message to recipients in CC). Of course the
> MUA's "reply all" functionality should be used when working with open MLs.
>
> Some MUAs (e.g. mutt) have a "list reply" functionality that can be used to
> send to the ML only.
>

I see, I guess that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
The previous ML I used indeed required a subscription.

Re: reply-to header

[Jack]

On 2009.12.30 14:00, Xavier wrote:
> Afaik the absence of that header is the reason that the reply button  
> in mail clients or in gmail answers to the sender rather than to the  
> mailing list.
> Does anyone know why that header is not included ?
> I consider it a must have for any mailing list, without reply-to it's  
> quite impractical.
> Or is everyone used to use reply-all or something, which includes the  
> ML in CC, and no one does the same mistake than me ?
> Maybe the problem is just me, as I only used mailing lists that  
> filled reply-to correctly before.

I don't think it's just you...
I believe some mailing list software has the option so the default  
"reply" goes either to the list of the original sender.  This could be  
checked by the list admin.
Also - some mail clients (I use Balsa) have a "Reply to group" (in my  
case, just hitting "g" instead of "r") which seems to do the right  
thing here.