Re: [Evolution] Reply for list messages should go back to the list

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:30 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > I thought we were past that.
> > >
> > > So did I, but we are *still* seeing proposals which would replace the
> > > existing private "Reply" button with a new "Reply" button that
> > > sometimes replies to the list.
> >
> > IIRC Matthew had this as a user-configurable option. As long as the
> > default case is not to do it, it's OK by me.
>
> We seem to be agreed on most things; I'm glad.
>
> What I have in my tree so far is hopefully just stuff we can all agree
> on:
>
>  1. Nag popup for "you are replying privately to a mailing list message"
>  2. Nag popup for "you are replying to all, to many recipients"

Both of these are OK, as long as the usual conditions apply, i.e. the
state is represented somewhere in the Preferences and can be reversed if
the user changes his mind.

>  3. A configuration option for ignoring Reply-To: when it matches
>     a List-Post: header (just in prefs; no popup).

There needs to be an explicit per-message Reply To Author (Reply To
Sender) because sometimes you want it and sometimes you don't. In fact I
think mostly you don't, but when you do (on munged lists) you really do.

>  4. Fix two memory leaks.

If you say so.

> http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/evolution.git
>  git://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/evolution.git
>
> I think we can all agree on those, right? I'll probably turn *both* of
> those nags off personally, but I'll still benefit from novice users
> seeing them.
>
> Going back to the "Reply" button stuff... I agree that the default case
> needs to be *not* to do it (where 'it' means replying in public).
>
> Do you agree that *if* the user is sophisticated enough to actually go
> and configure it, they're probably the kind of user who can manage to
> press the correct button anyway? So this idea isn't likely to do very
> much for the *really* novice users?

Could be, but we're not just doing this for the novices. Experts also
make the occasional mistake.

poc