273 lines
13 KiB
HTML
273 lines
13 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>MetaSystema.Net: Reply-To Munging Considered Useful</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#336666" alink="#336600" vlink="#003333" text="#000000">
|
|
|
|
<h1>This Page is a Mirror</h1>
|
|
<p>This page has been mirrored for historical preservation</p>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
|
|
<H2 ALIGN=CENTER>Reply-To Munging Considered Useful</H2>
|
|
<H3 ALIGN=CENTER>An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators</H3>
|
|
<H4 ALIGN=CENTER>Last revised: 3 January 2000</H4>
|
|
<HR>
|
|
|
|
<P>An email message requires some amount of processing when it is
|
|
redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must
|
|
be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator.
|
|
|
|
<P>While the message is being processed, the list administrator might
|
|
take advantage of the opportunity to
|
|
<A HREF="http://www.fwi.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/m/munge.html">munge</A> some
|
|
of the message headers. Many list administrators want to add a
|
|
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header that points back to the list. This transformation
|
|
is also one of the most useful.
|
|
|
|
<P>Some administrators claim that <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging
|
|
can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. I assert the opposite,
|
|
that <EM>not</EM> adding a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header has even more
|
|
harmful effects. If you think
|
|
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging is a <EM>bad</EM> idea, I hope I can change your
|
|
mind.
|
|
|
|
<H3>RFC 822 and "Text Message Teleconferencing"</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>The first thing to consider is that
|
|
<a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html">RFC 822</a>, the document which
|
|
defines the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in
|
|
section 4.4.3:
|
|
|
|
<pre>
|
|
A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
|
|
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
|
|
services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-To"
|
|
field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then
|
|
participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee
|
|
the correct distribution of any submission of their own.
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<P>Aside from this official sanction, there are a number of reasons for munging
|
|
the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header. The arguments which follow are my own.
|
|
They may not be comprehensive, but I think they are compelling.
|
|
|
|
<H3>The Principle of Minimal Bandwidth</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' is a good rule that will keep
|
|
you out of trouble. It says that you <EM>should</EM> make any changes
|
|
which will reduce the amount of email traffic on the Internet.
|
|
The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' will help you avoid the sorts of
|
|
problems we are about to discuss. This principle <EM>is</EM> a rule
|
|
designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache
|
|
by thinking hard and long before you do so.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Reply-To Munging Adds Something</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P><KDB>Reply-To</KDB> gives the respondant an option which would not
|
|
otherwise exist: namely the ability to <EM>reply only to the list</EM>.
|
|
Despite the fact that many (though not all) email clients have the
|
|
ability to "reply to sender" or "reply to all recipients", many list
|
|
subscribers want to <EM>reply only to the list</EM>, which is not the
|
|
result of selecting either of these options. So, to ensure that the
|
|
reply goes to the list, they select "reply to all recipients", which
|
|
generally results in the sending of <EM>at least two</EM> email messages, one
|
|
to the list, and one to the original sender.
|
|
|
|
<P>This is frequently quite annoying to the original sender, who now
|
|
receives two copies of the reply. Furthermore, in many cases the original
|
|
sender has added additional recipients. Not only does "reply to all
|
|
recipients" send the reply to each of these additional recipients
|
|
(who are frequently also members of the list), it also propagates this
|
|
list of recipients onto the reply to the list.
|
|
|
|
<P>The effects of this snowball, as each additional person replies to the
|
|
messages using "reply to all recipients", they become the sender, and thus
|
|
get added to the list of recipients with the next reply. Thus the list of
|
|
recipients grows and grows. Frequently, as the subject matter changes,
|
|
members of the list find themselves receiving multiple copies of messages
|
|
which have strayed from the topic in which they were originally interested,
|
|
<i>even after they have unsubscribed from the list</i>.
|
|
|
|
<P>Many people have pointed out that it is relatively easy to implement a
|
|
<KBD>procmail</KBD> filter to remove duplicates. This attitude merely reveals
|
|
a Unix-centric and US-centric viewpoint. Many users of inferior operating
|
|
systems <i>do not</i> have a tool powerful enough to ensure the removal of
|
|
duplicate messages. Furthermore, in many European countries, connect time is
|
|
charged by the <i>minute</i>. Even with <KBD>procmail</KBD>, the duplicates
|
|
have to be <i>downloaded</i> before they can be filtered, resulting in
|
|
unnecessary additional expenses for some of our European list mates.
|
|
|
|
<P>This last fact reveals that the issue is really related to bandwidth.
|
|
By applying the ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'', we conclude that it
|
|
is necessary to add a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header that points back to the list.
|
|
|
|
<H3>It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>If you use a reasonable mailer, <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging <EM>does</EM>
|
|
provide new functionality, namely the ability to <EM>reply only to the
|
|
list</EM>. Furthermore, it does <EM>not decrease</EM> functionality. In Pine,
|
|
for example, when there is a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header, Pine will ask,
|
|
``Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?'', easily allowing
|
|
one to reply only to the original author. In KMail, it is even easier. One
|
|
merely right-clicks on the hyperlinked <KBD>From</KBD> address.
|
|
|
|
<P>If your mailer doesn't have this option, you should request it from its
|
|
development team. Any mailer, whose development team refuses this simple
|
|
request due to some ideological position, cannot be said to be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Freedom of Choice</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>Since <KDB>Reply-To</KDB> munging adds additional functionality, it actually
|
|
<EM>increases</EM> freedom of choice. Not only can you now <EM>reply only to
|
|
the list</EM>, you still have the option to reply to the original
|
|
author, or to all recipients, easily and conveniently.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Some Mailers are Broken</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>There are, unfortunately, some poorly implemented mail programs that lack
|
|
separate "reply-to-author" and "reply-to-group" functions. A user saddled
|
|
with such a mailer can benefit from <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging. It makes
|
|
it easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list.
|
|
|
|
<P>Furthermore, this change <EM>does not</EM> penalize the conscientious
|
|
person that uses a reasonable mailer. Reasonable mailers give one the
|
|
ability to reply to the <KBD>From</KBD> address. Therefore, it would be
|
|
unkind to further penalize those with poorly implemented mail programs, since
|
|
munging the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header causes no harm to those with reasonable
|
|
mailers.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Principle of Least Total Work</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the time,
|
|
people want to reply to the list. Without munging, they either have to break
|
|
the ``Principle of Least Bandwidth'', or type in the list address. Many people,
|
|
being lazy, will choose the former, sending unnecessary copies of emails to
|
|
people who will either have to delete them, or take the time to set up a
|
|
filter (if they are lucky enough to be running an operating system which
|
|
facilitates this).
|
|
|
|
<P>On the other hand, about ten percent of the time, replying to the sender
|
|
might be more appropriate. Even if the respondant has an unreasonable
|
|
mailer (a decision for which they are probably responsible), the worst case
|
|
scenario is that they have to type in an address ten percent of the time.
|
|
Of course, if they took the time to add this recipient to their address book,
|
|
they could reduce the amount of typing to a minimum.
|
|
|
|
<P>So, which produces least total work: typing in the list address ninety
|
|
percent of the time (plus possibly taking the time to set up a filter), or
|
|
typing in an individual's address ten percent of the time?
|
|
|
|
<P>I'll take munged <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers every time, thanks.
|
|
|
|
<H3>People are Responsible for Their Own Mistakes</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>Some administrators claim that munging <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers is
|
|
harmful because it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go
|
|
awry. They assert that administrators should prevent the possibility of a
|
|
private message being mistakenly broadcast to the entire list.
|
|
|
|
<P>This is simply not the responsibility of the administrator. People are
|
|
responsible for their own mistakes. If someone is sending a private email
|
|
which is derogatory, or otherwise embarrassing were it to be made public,
|
|
they should probably be sending it directly, rather than as a reply to a
|
|
public message. They should also pause and think about whether they should
|
|
be sending it at all. This pause should be quite sufficient for a
|
|
conscientious person using a reasonable mailer to catch any mistake that
|
|
they might be about to make.
|
|
|
|
<P>In any case, it is an entirely trivial matter for the list administrator
|
|
to provide an obvious clue in the subject line of every message that the
|
|
message was received from a mailing list. If your Mailing List Manager doesn't
|
|
provide an option to prepend "[listname]" to the subject, then switch to one
|
|
that does ( e.g. <a href="http://www.list.org/">GNU MailMan</a>
|
|
or <a href="http://www.greatcircle.com/majordomo/">Majordomo</a> ).
|
|
|
|
<H3>And in the End...</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. Most mailing
|
|
lists are intended to facilitate discussion on a given topic. If this is
|
|
indeed the primary purpose of your list, then you <EM>really should</EM> add a
|
|
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header which directs replies to the list. This helps to
|
|
ensure that the entire thread of the conversation is available to all who
|
|
might be interested.
|
|
|
|
<P>I can't count the number of times I have searched the archives
|
|
of a list for a solution to a problem, only to find the question asked, but
|
|
no solution. Yet, when I subsequently post the question to the list, the
|
|
long-time members insist that it has already been discussed, and that I should
|
|
search the archives. If I'm lucky, a newer member forwards to me the private
|
|
reply which answered the question.
|
|
|
|
<P>Thus, munging the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header benefits those lists which are
|
|
intended for serious discussion. If your list is intended primarily for
|
|
announcements or other one-way mailings, you may safely ignore these arguments.
|
|
|
|
<H3>It's What People Want</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>I have been and am subscribed to both munging and non-munging mailing lists.
|
|
On the non-munging lists, there are regular requests to change the list so
|
|
that <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> replies to the list. On the munging lists which
|
|
already do this, there are hardly any requests for change.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Summary</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>Many people want to munge <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers. They believe
|
|
it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic.
|
|
It really does both of these things, and is a very good idea. To reiterate:
|
|
|
|
<UL>
|
|
|
|
<LI>It adheres to the principle of minimal bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
<LI>It provides additional functionality to the user.
|
|
|
|
<LI>It increases a subscriber's freedom to choose how to direct a response.
|
|
|
|
<LI>It does not reduce functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.
|
|
|
|
<LI>It aids and assists the user with a deficient mailer.
|
|
|
|
<LI>It adheres to the principle of least total work.
|
|
|
|
<LI>It helps to ensure that questions are answered on the list.
|
|
|
|
<LI>Your subscribers want you to do it.
|
|
|
|
</UL>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
<H3>Addendum</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>There are, of course, a few details that need to be addressed to make
|
|
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging more pleasant and productive for everyone. One
|
|
potentially serious problem with <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging is the possibility
|
|
of mail loops. It should be possible for the list server to detect and prevent
|
|
this. If anyone has any patches to implement this feature, I would be happy
|
|
to provide a link to the patch on your ftp server, or to make it available on
|
|
my own ftp server.
|
|
|
|
<P>Also, patches are needed for any mailers that do not implement the ability
|
|
to reply to the <KBD>From</KBD> address. Please send links or patches to me
|
|
at <i>sdhill at metasystema.net</i>. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Patches</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
A patch for Emacs rmail is available at: <a href="http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el">http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el</a>.
|
|
|
|
<H3>Dissenting Opinion</H3>
|
|
|
|
<P>I originally wrote this essay as a response to Chip Rosenthal's
|
|
<a href="harmful.html">
|
|
Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful</a>.
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<address>Simon Hill</address>
|
|
<address>sdhill at metasystema.net</address>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|