[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sylpheed
Subject:    [sylpheed:16304] message reply handling WAS  Re: Sylpheed 0.8.4 coming soon
From:       vanillicat <vanilli () nycap ! rr ! com>
Date:       2002-09-29 18:02:26
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:34:18 +0100
Richard Kimber <rkimber@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:57:08 +0200
> Alfons Hoogervorst <alfons@proteus.demon.nl> wrote:
> 
> > I'm really happy with the three reply modes, but I can imagine
> > people who don't want to have three visible buttons.
> 
> Indeed.  Surely the number of buttons should be dictated by what is
> logically possible. If it is logically possible to have a system that
> works with fewer than three, then that's what I would want.

I don't think this can be done without some more work.  See below for
more details.

> IMHO, the best solution is to have one button for which the default
> behaviour can be set by the user. One of the behaviour options would
> be as it is now, the other would be "if it's a list reply to it, if it
> isn't reply in the normal way". Since people accidentally replying to
> individuals instead of a list often causes irritation, the option of
> replying to the individual and not the list should be a menu item and
> not a button (to make it a conscious decision;  in any case on a list
> this function is

If "reply to list" is the button action, and the "reply to individual"
is only a menu option, how does one deal with normal email?  With
personal email, "reply to individual" I think would be the most common
button; the exact reverse of the mailing list situation.  In fact, with
personal mail, there is essentially no need for "reply to list", as this
doesn't make sense for non-list email.  Anyway, though I would of course
use the "reply to list" feature most often, I do have use for the "reply
to individual" function in this scenario.  That's just me though, and
I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to force my preferences upon you
:)  More on this shortly.

> needed much much less than is replying to the list).  I'm not familiar
> with Claws, and I'm not clear under what circumstances Reply to All
> would be used, but if Claws really does reply to every valid address
> in the

"Reply to all" is useful on mailing lists where the thread starter is
not subscribed to the list.  Thus, one needs to mail both the individual
who starts the thread, as well as the rest of the list.  

> header couldn't Reply to All result in someone getting more than one
> copy of a message, if used on a list?  It sounds to me as though it
> also should

Yes, and this is precisely why the "reply to list" option is needed. 
Otherwise, for mailing lists that refuse to give into header munging in
order to accomodate crippled MUAs, the best way to automate a list reply
was to hit "reply to all" and then prune the headers.  Unfortunately,
not everybody prunes those headers.  This results in duplicates for the
original poster, as you mentioned.  Furthermore, as people continue to
do this, the original poster and whoever else is in the headers continue
to receive replies.  The first person has no choice about whether or not
they want to follow the thread since their email address is in the
headers.  In the worst situation I can think of, the to and CC list
would just continue to grow.  Bad news.

> be a menu item, as at present.  I'm not sure I'd want a button for it.
>  I
> think printing has a higher priority than that. Buttons surely are for
> the most often used functions. (Ideally, of course, there's a case for
> button bar configurability... but that's another story).
> 
> - Richard.
> 

I use mailing lists so much that I would classify reply to list as a
"most often used function"  Of course not everybody is like me.  There
are, I think, two ways around this situation.  First, Alfons has
suggested merging the claws toolbar configuration code into vanilla
Sylpheed (I was unware that this existed, until earlier today).  This
would allow people to customize the toolbar as desired; both you and I
would be happy.

The other thing to do would be to inform Sylpheed of which folders are
mailing lists, such that it can grey out/cause to disappear the "reply
to list" feature as required.  This also opens the door to the Mutt
style handling of mailing lists, which seems quite good both from what I
hear from others, as well as from reading the documentation.  There was
some good discussion of this in the last thread about mailing list
handling.

The only thing I'm worried about is having the reply button do double
duty depending upon whether or not we're dealing with a mailing list.  I
find this confusing.  In my opinion, "reply to individual" should reply
to the originator of the message, and "reply to list" should simply
reply to the list.  One button should not be allowed to do both.

Thoughts?
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]