[Zope] Split the list again?

[Alexander Staubo]

I didn't say I didn't _understand_, I just uttered my disputably
subjective opinion that the rationale is utter bollocks.

I accept that the statistical minority and the apparently devaluated
authority of my opinion makes the difference of a pebble on a beach in
this forum, and will forthwith resign to the fact that I'm obviously the
newbie that you imply, and that I, as a sometime user, have no business
talking about user-friendliness. I'll just go back to my BASIC programs
now and ponder on the intricacies of the command "print", thanks. :)

I second the idea of going NNTP.

--
Alexander Staubo             http://www.mop.no/~alex/
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'"
--Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_

>-----Original Message-----
>From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of Ken
>Manheimer
>Sent: 16. juni 1999 19:13
>To: 'Alexander Staubo'; Zope Mailing List (E-mail)
>Cc: 'Phillip Beazley'
>Subject: RE: [Zope] Split the list again?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Staubo [mailto:alex@mop.no]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 11:15 AM
>> To: Zope Mailing List (E-mail)
>> Subject: RE: [Zope] Split the list again?
>>
>>
>> I never figured this on out. There's nothing harmful about Reply-To.
>
>Because you don't see it doesn't mean it's wrong!-)
>
>In brief, reply-to is not intended for the mailing list to
>grab replies.
>Munging of it breaks that intended purpose.
>
>The actual purpose is to enable senders to specify an alternative
>address, other than the one from which they're sending the message, as
>the destination for replies.  This is very simple, and very useful for
>people who send mail from multiple places and want to be assured that
>they'l get the replies in one place.  It's also used to specify
>different response addresses depending on what's being sent.  In any
>case, it's a tool for the original sender, not the intermediate mailing
>list.  Having the mailing list system stomp the reply-to for its own
>purpose loses that essential information.  This is "evil", in
>programming parlance.
>
>Having the mailing list system try to compensate by, eg, altering the
>'from' address to preserve the reply-to info loses the from info, and
>compounds the sin.  This is the path to irredeemable corruption - known
>in some circles as excessive bureacracy:-)
>
>There are other reasons for not munging the reply-to - i think
>the cited
>article goes into them, i don't recall exactly which.  It's sufficient
>to say that (1) the fact that you don't understand the
>"reply-to munging
>considered harmful" rationale is not adequate reason to dismiss the
>rationale, and (2) the controversy alone, plus the above
>specific reason
>- plus (3, 4, 5...) reply-to's actual intended purpose, plus the
>principle that minimal intervention is desirable, (particularly when it
>comes to email!) is enough to convince us to think twice
>before changing
>it back.  Wouldn't that be enough for you?
>
>In another message on the subject, Phillip Beazley wrote:
>
>> >reply-to list also leads to a higher incidence of mail loops, stupid
>> >vacation messages, and other rubbish, being sent to the list.
>
>> If that's the case, the list administrator needs to get a better list
>server.
>
>I won't take offense, though i'm one of the developers of the list
>server in question (mailman, which has its pluses and its minuses).  I
>do think it's presumptuous - particularly in light of the litany of
>reasons above - to dismiss the cited article, and opinions of
>many savvy
>email folk.  There are good reasons for the decision - and we're not
>planning to change it.
>
>Ken Manheimer
>klm@digicool.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
>http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
>
>(For developer-specific issues, use the companion list,
>zope-dev@zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>