From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ... |
Date: | 2004-11-29 07:36:10 |
Message-ID: | 9823.1101713770@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> We've done quite well with the current setup, so I don't see a need to
> tinker with it. I've always found the Reply-to-enabled lists I'm on to
> be a more lossy medium.
The basic issue is that the current setup encourages
reply-to-author-and-list, while adding Reply-To encourages
reply-to-list-only (at least when the replier is using one of the mail
clients I'm used to). Peter correctly notes that reply-to-list-only
creates problems for authors who aren't subscribed. The other point
that looms large for me is that reply-to-list-only forces every
conversation to occur just at the speed and reliability of the list
'bot. Without wishing to tread on anyone's toes, it's undeniable that
we have a long history of slow and unreliable forwarding through the PG
list server. I'd rather have contributors to a thread converse among
themselves, and let the list server catch up when it can.
Personally: if Reply-To is added to the list headers, I can and will
reprogram my mail software to ignore it. But I doubt that most
contributors to the lists have that option.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Holger Klawitter | 2004-11-29 08:15:24 | Re: How many views... |
Previous Message | Uwe C. Schroeder | 2004-11-29 07:27:57 | Re: How many views... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-29 07:49:37 | Re: bug fix request |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-11-29 07:34:26 | Re: multiline CSV fields |