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

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> The problem with that suggestion is that there are people (including
> myself) who firmly believe that the "right" thing to do with a list
> message is to *include* the original sender when replying, unless you're
> sure they don't want you to.

And I very firmly believe that CC'ing someone who is already on the list
is most definitely NOT the right thing to do.

> The sender may not be subscribed to the list, and even if they are
> subscribed they may not be looking in that folder very often, if ever.
> It would be *extremely* rude to drop them from Cc when you're replying
> to them.

And I think it extremely rude for someone to effectively say "I want to
say something but I can't be arsed to find out what anyone else has to
say. My time is more important than yours so please send the messages
directly to me to save me the effort of finding out."

> Even if they are subscribed (and looking in that folder) there may also
> be a substantial delay to receiving mails through the mailing list,
> which will introduce significantly more latency than if the active
> participants are directly in Cc, and detract from the conversation.

And I'm on other lists where people have the habit of doing reply to all
and the CC: list eventually contains virtually everyone on the mailing
list.  It's just crass stupidity.  

And, as I've already pointed out, the CC: copy people receive does not
have the list headers - which immediately makes them not do the right
thing of replying to the list, and since a sensible list filters out
duplicates, it means that they never do get the list version.  It's
because of this crass behaviour that I had to modify my server side
filters to filter not on the list headers (which would be sensible) but
on To: *and* CC: - even the Evo filters won't filter mailing list
messages which don't have the mailing list headers, so the expectation
is obviously that messages from a mailing list will have the mailing
list headers.

> Let's not argue about that too much -- we won't make any progress. Let's
> just recognise that this 'DTRT' thing that you suggest is hard when we
> can't agree on what TRT is.

Yes, but all your solutions seem to implement it the way *you* want - in
other words, "lets not argue about it because I know I'm right".

> But I have already¹ posted a patch which *optionally* makes the existing
> 'Reply to All' button do what you propose, so you can set that option if
> you want. And yes, I also say that you can keep it named "Reply to All"
> for all I care, so that's what I did.

I would be strongly against any implementation that automatically,
whether through option or not, allowed people to "reply to list" with a
CC: added.

P.