results of poll on IVOA e-mail list configuration

Wed Feb 1 14:11:43 PST 2006

The polls are now closed.  Thanks to all 82 of you who expressed your opinions and concerns about how the IVOA e-mail lists are configured.

The results of the poll are as follows:

Option 1:  I prefer having the IVOA e-mail lists configured as they are now, with
the "reply-to" set to the entire list.
-- 29 votes --

Option 2:  I prefer having the IVOA e-mail lists configured so that a reply goes
only to the sender, and "reply-all" is required to respond to the list.
-- 51 votes --

Don't care:  
-- 2 votes --

These results will need to be discussed by the IVOA Exec before any decision is made, but I figured you were all sitting on the edge of your seats waiting to know the results!

I attach below the comments that I received along with the votes.  I edited out a few things that might have disclosed individual's identities.  There are some interesting suggestions for additional munging that might make it clearer what is going on.

So, let's let this topic rest while the Exec ponders what to do.  Thanks to all of you who took time to think about the issue!

Bob

p.s.  I have retained the original e-mails should anyone question my vote counting, and I tabulated results in a spreadsheet noting the sender and the time the e-mail arrived in my inbox.

>From those wanting it the way it is....

---

Users should expect that a 'reply' is to the list (obvious if they look at

the reply email address), not an individual....

---

If the users of this list can't figure out the difference between

reply-to-a-person and reply-to-all, then the VO is in real trouble!

---

I vote for the status quo.

Marginally, I actually think this is better; but mostly I am agnostic

and therefore vote strongly for minimum action.

At least this debate has made everybody realize what happens !

---

Before voting, I'd like to point out that the behavior is not uniform

between mail servers. If I use pine (as now), by hitting reply it gives the

choice to reply to the "from" or the "reply-to" fields. Gmail (on the other

hand) does exactly the same if you say "reply" or "reply-all": it always

sends to the list, never to you (From).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the result of replying to a message

posted via the list is a

combination of what the mailing list does and what your mailer does, and we

know that we'll never agree to use just one mailer, it would be a

holy/flame  war :-) :-)

Perhaps a compromise would be to let the mailing list software to add a

warning at the top(bottom?) reminding users of the existence of the From

and Reply-to fields?

Now, my vote.. keep it as it is but enlighten users & remind them to check

the "to" field of their outgoing messages.

---

1) Please keep the list as is;

2) Please make sure that the FIRST and the LAST line of ANY message sent

to any of the IVOA mailing lists contains a *** WELL HIGHLIGHTED ***

phrase stating that the Reply-to recipient is the mailing list itself

and not the sender. According to google that is feasible:

http://cob.jmu.edu/wrightnd/config.txt

> # message_footer       [string_array] (undef) <resend,digest>

> # Text to be appended at the end of all messages posted to the

> # list. The text is expanded before being used. The following

> # expansion tokens are defined: $LIST - the name of the current

> # list, $SENDER - the sender as taken from the from line, $VERSION,

> # the version of majordomo. If used in a digest, no expansion

> # tokens are provided

> message_footer      <<  END

> *** REPLY-TO SENDS ANSWERS TO ${LIST} and not to the sender! ***

>

> END

>

> # message_fronter      [string_array] (undef) <resend,digest>

> # Text to be prepended to the beginning of all messages posted to

> # the list. The text is expanded before being used. The following

> # expansion tokens are defined: $LIST - the name of the current

> # list, $SENDER - the sender as taken from the from line, $VERSION,

> # the version of majordomo. If used in a digest, only the expansion

> # token _SUBJECTS_ is available, and it expands to the list of

> # message subjects in the digest

> message_fronter     <<  END

> *** REPLY-TO SENDS ANSWERS TO ${LIST} and not to the sender! ***

>

> END

>

---

I understand the risk of unintentionally broadcasting a reply that  

was intended to be private.  I think the greater risk is one of  

fragmenting the discussion threads.  There are already too many  

separate IVOA lists.  Discussions in one forum often overlap the  

responsibilities of another forum.  The result is either that  

messages have to be duplicated to reach both groups, or alternately  

that everyone subscribes to all the lists. We can't afford incessant  

confusion over whether a message has been seen by everybody who needs  

to see it.

Important threads get sidetracked into small special interest groups.  Either traction is lost on resolving  issues or patience is lost.  Communication suffers.

The IVOA discussions are complex and require subtle reasoning.   

Anything that adversely affects communication presents a threat to  

the process.  Would prefer a few embarrassing moments to constant  

bickering over who said what, and - weren't you listening?

In any event, we don't have to look to current U.S. politics to know  

that an expectation of privacy is nonsense via email.

---

The current configuration is 

convenient for most of the mailing list subscribers, I feel.

---

I am a "reply-to entire list" advocate.

Changing the configuration of the mailing lists creates another 

problem though. Some people will make the mistake of replying only to 

the sender, while they inteded to reply to the whole list. This 

efectively breaks up the communication flow, since their say will not be 

considered by the whole inteded audience.

---

My mailer prompts with the reply-to, and if that is denied it prompts

with the from.  Things are very functional as they are.

---

And from those who want it changed....

---

Though I have no problem with either configuration (I'm still using

the basic Unix mail, which includes the email addresses in the message

to be edited) I feel it's better to keep the standard behavior.

---

I don't suppose the list admin (if he or she is listening) could switch 

off the reply-to munging?  At risk of starting a flame war on the pros 

and cons (see: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html ) it _is_ 

a pretty dangerous feature and could be the cause of some career-ending 

embarrassment. 

---

No "reply-to" munging please (I find it really, really irritating!) ...

>  DO NOT simply "reply" to this message unless you want your response to be

>read by the entire Interop distribution list!  Reply to hanisch at stsci.edu.

... and a perfect example why.

---

As a programmer that participates in many mailing lists:

unfortunately, Bob, the current IVOA mailing list scheme is not really typical

and looks somewhat strange. Typically as a maillist owner you should only

fill From field with sender address (you may fill Reply-To with the same

thing) and CC field with the mailing list address so that "reply-all" is

required to answer to the community. One can argue a lot but exactly this

is a common practice.

---

o I prefer having the IVOA e-mail lists configured so that a reply goes only

to the sender, and "reply-all" is required to respond to the list.

Such a behavior seems rather natural to me, and to help the others, I'd

mention that the cost of private communication becoming public is higher

than having to re-issue a message, furthermore nowadays a "Reply to all"

button is usually not far from a "Reply" one.

---

I think the catastrophic effect produced by getting a message twice is

much smaller than the fire started by private comments to an e-mail.  

Great example provided by courtesy of ESO - CDS last week. 

---

o  I prefer having the IVOA e-mail lists configured so that a reply goes

only to the sender, and "reply-all" is required to respond to the list.

as that's how standart lists works - I checked that with Debian lists

which I'm member. 

---

i'm used to this mode even with [other] lists, but i can understand how 

dangerous this can be if you're not careful, so i'll vote to make the 

reply go only to the sender by default.

---

This isn't any big deal for me as I always check email addressing carefully,

but I think it is entirely appropriate to send email directly to a person

and only copy it to an IVOA list.  Hence aside from the possibility of

inadvertently misaddressing a message, responding to the sender is often

logical.  Yes, they may get two copies, but so what.

---

I prefer having the IVOA e-mail lists configured so that a reply goes

only to the sender, and "reply-all" is required to respond to the list.

I have experience with several other email lists and I found that this 

is MUCH better.  I have had really bad experiences with the setting 

where replies go automatically to the list.

---

Well, you certainly opened Pandora's box on this one.

Or, perhaps, it is a tempest in a teapot instead?

You already know my views on this, which have just been

reinforced because after hitting "reply" I had to delete

the list address and insert yours.

---

And from those who have no preference....

---

My vote is.........  I just don't care.

--- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/interop/attachments/20060201/26e00de5/attachment-0001.html>