Re: Two copies of email when cc-ed in mailing lists

On 2024-10-27 11:06:45, John Hawkinson wrote:
> I just want to point out a few things:
> 
> . What is described as "two copies" is really two different messages
>   that contain some different information.
> . Sometimes those differences are important to keep track of.
> . When a mailing list delays delivery of a message substantially
>   (hours, days, moderation approval, &c.), knowing that information can
>   be very useful.
> . Sometimes a mailing list will alter a message in ways that matter
>   (dropping images or attachments, screwing up links, adding footers at
>   the bottom).
> 
> Personally, and I think I am an outlier, I very much want to see the
> multiple copies.
> 
> Although for the recent and medium-term past, I've used email systems
> where my server does duplicate supression, and I absolutely detest it,
> and it causes me some real frustrations.
> 
> 
> It seems particularly weird that it's somewhat common for this
> suppression to be done server-side, because it's really a client-side
> question. Of course, as more and more users are using web-based email
> systems, the server and the client are conjoined and overlap in weird
> ways, which doubtless has someting do with it.
> 
> 
> But if you wnated to do duplicate suppression in the client (mutt) in
> an effective way, it would be worth some thought about how to design
> it well. Ideally it would be something where duplicates were hidden
> but still accessible if you wanted to dig deeper. Mutt is definitely
> not optimized to make this easier.
> 
> Anyhow:
> 
> Nicolas George <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 27 Oct 2024
> at 09:04:35 EDT in <[email protected]>:
> 
> > It tells mutt to add “Reply-To: [email protected]” when writing to
> > mutt-users, and will tell people who reply to reply to the list
> > rather than you.
> > 
> > Most mailing-list do that for you, this one, along with the Debian
> > ones, is one of the few I know that do not, expecting users to
> > adhere to the failed “List-Reply-To” standard instead.
> 
> No, this is not a fair statement ("Most").
> 
> There is an immense variety in how mailing lists on the Internet work,
> and it's almost impossible to make accurate statements about "most
> mailing lists." There are strong and differing opinions on the right
> way to set this up (and many other parameters too).
> 
> For many people who have a particular scope or area of focus, it can
> seem like "most mailing lists" are set up in a particular way. But
> that experience is far from universal.
> 
> 
> Philosophically, I don't think it's a great idea for individuals to
> set Reply-To in emails they send to lists.
> For one thing, it's not universally effective --- many mailing lists
> strip or override reply-to headers when disseminating emails.
> For another thing, it means that the experience of replying to an
> email on the list is different when replying to different people. If
> person A emails the list and changes their reply-to, and person B does
> not, then someone who replies to both messages may see a different
> experience, and that can cause confusion.
> 
> Still, you might find it is a solution that is somewhat effective on
> an individual level, and not everyone needs to concern themselves with
> the systemic costs of those kinds of actions and how they might scale
> up if some others, many others, or all others choose them.

Thanks all for your kind advice. When I asked the question, I hadn't
thought much about it other than just wanting to the duplicates to
disappear.

After consideration, I have decided to keep the duplicates (which aren't
too many), and deal with them manually.

Nicolas, thanks very much for the tip on the "reply-to" option. I had no
idea that such a thing exists. It's really useful to know.

-- 
Sadeep Madurange
PGP: 103BF9E3E750BF7E