Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

["Garreau\, Alexandre" <galex-713 galex-713 eu>]

On 2018-05-28 at 15:40, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > “reply in private to the list, outside of the knowledge of eventual
> > participants). The problem here is “reply to the list” is not the
> > canonical standard thing most people will want to do, it is just the
> > complementary opposite of “reply privately to the sender”: “reply
> > privately to the list”.
>
> Reply-To-List is the only option anyone should ever use, IMNSHO.  Doing
> anything else is bad netiquette.

Really? When beginning first to use mailing lists I was curious about
such a practice, but I tried to read again Netiquitte and didn’t found
anything related [1].  Also that means if I didn’t subscribed to this
list (I almost didn’t, then did, since Evolution was my first mail
user-agent, a major one, and I might be interested in its, heh,
evolution) I would never have received an answer, as I believe neither
mailman nor sympa do have the (complicated) feature of keeping track of
subjects, references and reply-to headers so that to send to
unsubscribed senders to the mailing-list messages that answer or
references what they sent. Especially that would impedes the ability to
privately react and discuss about the sent may privately before to maybe
answer back a maybe more reflected and collective answer. Yet I guess
that too might be considered bad netiquette, as until then I only twice
were answered on a mailing list without having been directly mailed:
once before my mail, and once with this one.

On all other mailing lists (mainly: GNU, my (associative) ISPs, as well
as administrative or political mailing lists) I’ve *always* be directed
(intentionnally or not) with “To” or “Cc” the mail.  And several times
(especially for non-technical ones, where participant didn’t always knew
or were used to what was a mailing list) that helped keep some
(sometimes important to the discussion) people in the discussion.

> I always reply to list and drop all other recipients;  I assume they
> are detritus accumulated from misconfigured mail clients.

For me when “to” contain anything, that doesn’t only mean I want to send
the message there (that, in fact, would be detritus if the person is
knowledgably subscribed to the mailing list) but that also means the
message is *directed” to that person in the meaning that if I say “you”
there, that means anybody in the “To:” header, contrasted with anybody
in the “Cc:” header or to which I may show or afterward re-send the mail
(be it by some other protocol than SMTP).  For instance, as I see you
didn’t (and asked for) not add(ing) the user personal address in “to”, I
consider I can’t personally address people in this mail, except to the
whole mailing list, then each time I say “you” in this mail that’s
either impersonal pronoun, either directed to the general audience of
the mailing list.

My mail client (emacs) has several options to answer to messages, and I
usually do this because I asked to people (on mailing lists) and they
said me to do so so unsubscribed people can see the message, and I also
found that added value of semantically signifying who your message is
intended for.

> > I think there should be a “reply to list and sender” (or differently
> > named) feature that does answer to the list while staying addressed
> > at the sender, as does my current user-agent with “wide reply”.  
>
> This is not so simple to implement reliably as you might think; 
> determining which addresses are which, not across all mail list
> software, hosting, etc...

Simply: you put the original sender in the “to” header, and anything
else, including the address in “list-post” (except if it’s already in
“to” or “cc”) in “cc”, by default, and then possibly let the user alter
this if they desire so.

> Anyway Reply-To-List solves the problem.

No because that loose semantical information, means something else, can
do something else (discuss in private on the list) and exclude
unsubscribed participant.

> Some user's use of mail-filters is not a problem for other list
> subscribers to solve.

That might be a solution to *remove* mail, not to add/receive, so my
proposition still is useful.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855#section-3.1.2