The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started

[Oleg Goldshmidt]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Shachar Shemesh <shachar at shemesh.biz> wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>>
>> If I'm summarizing your argument correctly, you are saying that mailing
>> list discussions should ALWAYS be public, no matter what. That it is the
>> mailing list that I'm conversing with, and not the individuals who
>> participate in the mailing list thread.

By default the discussion is public, and I am conversing with the
list. There is no contradiction with list members addressing each
other in the 2nd person. After all the most typical thread starts with
a question, someone answering that question, someone else pointing out
an error or omission in the answer, etc. It starts as a public
question and continues as a public discussion. 3rd person is used
often as well.

"No matter what" is your addition. I only think it should require an
effort to switch a mailing list discussion to a private channel. If,
e.g., Shachar and Oleg want to discuss the same topic privately for
whatever reason it is reasonable to expect this to be a conscious
decision followed by a trivial operation performed by one of them.

I see a difference between a list posting and an email to me and a
bunch of others, and I would like to distinguish between these cases.
Now I can't. I apply heuristics ("This is a mail from Shachar to me,
is Linux-IL also in To or Cc? If yes, then most likely it is a mailing
list posting and I am in To only by chance."). I cannot distinguish
between a message to a list with a copy to me (because the sender is
not sure whether I am subscribed?) and a message to me with a copy to
a list (because it might be interesting?). I would like to assign
different attributes to the message in these two cases, but I can't.

Note that I used "a list" and not "the list" in the previous
paragraph. Use cases such as crossposting or a person leaving a list
because he is tired of it or doesn't want to clutter his Blackberry
while traveling or whatever, and everybody keeping CCing him, look
very problematic to me indeed. Because of this, I always check (or at
least try to) the recipient list when I post and filter it manually,
so it is at least as bad for me as your fear of sending a private mail
to a list.

> On further reflection, I do think that there are cases where your argument
> may make sense. I think that your categorizing lists into two types is an
> over-simplification.

Let me assure you again that it is not my invention. The distinction
is explicit in the very *definition* of mailman, cf. the very first
line of http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/ that says,

"Mailman is free software for managing electronic mail discussion and
e-newsletter lists."

"Discussion" and "newsletter" are the two types of lists I alluded to
(I called the second one "announcement" lists).

If you look further into the mailman docs you will find two options to
set reply-to - poster and list - with the following explanation, see,
e.g.,

http://staff.imsa.edu/~ckolar/mailman/mailman-administration-v2.html :

"When poster is selected, the reply-to line will be written by Mailman
so that persons hitting reply in their mail program will send their
response back to the individual who posted the note. When this value
is set to "this list" the reply-to line will be rewritten so that
persons hitting reply in their mail program will send their response
back to the list itself.  When this value is set to "explicit address"
the Reply-To header will use the value that is provided in the field
below.

While the program suggests that this be set to poster, you should
consider the purpose of the list in selecting this value. Lists that
intend to focus on discussion are best set to "list" to encourage
conversation. Lists used for announcements are best set to poster to
prevent unwanted traffic and the inadvertent broadcast of replies."

My interpretation of the default choice is that there are many more
"newsletter" lists created quickly on an ad-hoc basis ("we are
organizing a conference/customer meeting/whatever", "here is a version
control commit list for the project", etc.) than discussion lists with
much higher longevity and better chances of careful configuration.
This was certainly the case for me when I used mailman extensively in
the course of my work, running projects, etc.

> Don't get me wrong. I think all of the above is a good thing. I just think
> that, in such a list, putting reply-to is harmful.

Don't get _me_ wrong. ;-) I do not intend to take over list
management, and believe me that I appreciate the time and effort you
invest into it. And I will be the first to say that as long as you
administer the list your opinion weighs more than mine, and whoever
wants to "fix" it should offer the community his/her services as an
alternative administrator.

I have survived with the settings I don't like long enough to assume I
will survive longer still. I just suggested to reconsider the settings
(they do make my life harder than it could have been) and tried to
argue my case.

Please do consider that even the documentation of the mailing list
software package Linux-IL has just switched to suggests that it is
more appropriate to send replies to list - I hope everyone will agree
that this is a "discussion" list rather than a "newsletter" one. There
is reasoning behind it, and not just my personal quirks. If my
attempts to elucidate the reasoning are flawed and deficient, the
fault is mine.

To those who have got to this point - sorry for being long-winded. I
have already written it and I will not edit for brevity... ;-)

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | pub at goldshmidt.org