Re: reply-to set

(crossing over to pgsql-www, because I think we need to hash out whether
this is a good idea or not)

On 07/30/2013 10:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 09:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have set the reply_to option for lists pgsql-jobs and pgsql-announce
>>> to $SENDER, which (if I read the manual right) means that the outgoing
>>> messages will have a Reply-To: header pointing to the sender of the
>>> message. The intent is to prevent some mistakes where people reply to
>>> those lists instead of to the senders.
>>>
>>> I hope this will work sanely, but if anything looks wrong to you, please
>>> ping me immediately. Thanks.
>>
>> Did we discuss this on -www?
>
> No, only in the sysadmins channel.
>
>> That makes sense for -jobs, but I'm not sure it's such a good idea for
>> -announce.
>
> Why not? Surely replies to -announce shouldn't go to the list. If you
> have another idea to set the reply-to for pgsql-announce, I'm all ears.
>

People who post to -announce already get dozens of bounce messages as it
is. If you do reply-to-sender:

a) the number of bounce messages an -announce poster gets will go into
the hundreds (as used to be the case)

b) majordomo won't do automated bounce processing if bounces don't hit
the list, so invalid subscribers will never be removed.

> Surely replies to -announce shouldn't go to the list. If you
> have another idea to set the reply-to for pgsql-announce, I'm all ears.

Ideally, we'd have an address which would trigger automated bounce
processing without ending up in list moderation if it's not treated as a
bounce. No idea how to make that work with MJ, though.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com