Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ...

Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:

> It is also possible for mailing list software to handle this preference for
> you (by not sending copies to addresses on the list that appear in the
> recipient headers), but I don't know if the software in use has that
> capability.

I've noticed some lists starting to do this. The only reason I notice is
because they appear totally broken for me and anyone else sorting the messages
into folders depending on whether they arrive via a mailing list.

When I read the list I read it in a separate group from my personal mail. When
someone Cc's me I get two copies, one in my personal mail and one in the list
folder. That's fine with me, it integrates well with the order in which I read
my mail and with my settings to purge list mail but archive personal mail. But

For lists where the list software has started implementing this broken
behaviour the behaviour I see is that the list folder is just incomplete. It
randomly misses some messages and not others depending on whether the sender
Cc'd me in the headers.

A lot of work seems to be going into making list manager software work around
limitations of broken mail readers. In the process they're making it really
hard to make mail readers that aren't broken work properly.

(On that note I would dearly love to get rid of the stupid "[GENERAL]"
"[HACKERS]" etc tags? Filtering on subject is a dumb way to filter your mail,
there are perfectly good headers inserted by the list manager that don't get
confused by cross-posts and personal followups and so on. I have procmail
rules that remove the tags when they match the list name but postgres's lists'
tags don't so they slip past.)

--
greg