1 |
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even |
3 |
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole |
4 |
> Gentoo dev list to see. |
5 |
|
6 |
I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible |
7 |
council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's |
8 |
happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header |
9 |
set. |
10 |
|
11 |
This issue I feel needs to be addressed for two major reasons: |
12 |
Firstly, with no explicit Reply-To address, most mail clients default to |
13 |
replying to the sender of the message. This means that, for people who |
14 |
use such clients must manually replace the To: address in their reply |
15 |
composition. Unfortunately, there have been prior instances of a dev |
16 |
accidentally replying to the -core list on -dev. This means that the |
17 |
conversation intended to stay private and internal to Gentoo suddenly is |
18 |
in the public eye and many archives. This will inevitably occur if such |
19 |
behavior is not resolved. |
20 |
|
21 |
Secondly, every other Gentoo mailing list that I am subscribed to |
22 |
(g-dev, g-devrel, g-gwn) adds a Reply-To header which instructs the |
23 |
dev's MUA to default to replying to the list address, rather than to the |
24 |
individual sender of the message to which they reply. Unfortunately, |
25 |
gentoo-core is the only list which does not follow this behavior. |
26 |
|
27 |
I would appreciate the council voting on making this behavior |
28 |
consistent: Force gentoo-core to add this header, or remove it from the |
29 |
other mailing lists. |
30 |
|
31 |
Thanks. |
32 |
-- |
33 |
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) |
34 |
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator |
35 |
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: |
36 |
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 |
37 |
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ |