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

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:44 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> OK. So it's not just any List-*: header, there's a specific list of
> headers it needs (with specific formats in some cases).  Fine, that
> explains why my test didn't work.  Thanks for explaining it.

Arguably we should fix things so that it's only enabled when there is a
List-Post: header. Likewise all the individual items in the Message ->
Mailing List submenu ought to be enabled only if the corresponding
header is present. It's just that we don't actually store that
information in the message summary, only a single boolean for 'is
mailing list' -- and it would be a PITA to change.

> No, I think you got the wrong end of the stick on this - it's not my
> mail software that only lets me see one version, I only ever get sent
> one version by the mailing list software

Ah, OK. There are people who suffer from both of those "problems"; I had
forgotten which one it was in your case.

> But as I have said a few times, this isn't really about my usability 

Well, it isn't about *any* individual's usability, but that doesn't mean
we shouldn't be asking individuals what they find most usable. You
seemed to have an viewpoint that was worth considering... and one which
differs from mine, which makes it interesting.

> What I would like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to
> encourage people to use that rather than just blindly replying to the
> user.

Certainly I'm with you on the 'rather than just blindly replying to the
user' bit -- there's now a pop-up which will say "you're replying in
private; do you really want to do that?".

As for which *type* of public reply -- to all vs. to list -- we
obviously disagree on that topic. But now it's configurable for you.

Would you like to send me a well-reasoned counter argument that I can
present in http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html ?

Your response, if I recall correctly, was that the affected people
(Claire, Karl and maybe Fred in my examples) were being rude because
they wanted to operate in 'write-only' mode, without listening to what
anyone else had to say... and that was your reasoning for not *letting*
them see what you had to say, which confused me because it seemed a
little circular. Personally, I'm more like Fred and I prefer *not* to
operate in write-only mode, which is precisely *why* I don't want to be
dropped from Cc when people reply to me. If you could phrase your view
in terms of the examples on that page (and perhaps provide new examples,
if you think there are relevant usage models that I've left out), then
that would be interesting.

-- 
dwmw2