-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change reply behavior #3738
Comments
Thanks for compiling this list, very helpful 👍 I think it's customary for list replies to reply to both list and sender. It's rarely harmful at least, and removing recipients from the list is easier than adding more. That way we can get rid of an entire option, since "reply to list" and "reply to all" become the same for typical list messages. Any thoughts on dropping the general "Reply" in favor of "Reply to sender" whenever it's ambiguous? While it's consistent to say "reply means reply to sender", at least for me that is rarely the "do what I mean" option I expect from a general "Reply" button. |
I updated the examples based on @Valodim's feedback. One thing I don't know how I feel about is the fact that this more or less ignores |
There is one case that I think may be relevant here. Some mailing lists add a An example (anonymized):
|
What we need to work out is what "reply to sender" means for a list, and how it is affected by different constellations of
Shouldn't "reply to sender" here reply to
This becomes more ambiguous with mailing lists, which might abuse "Reply-To" as "List-Post".
In this case, "reply to sender" should obviously to go |
My previous proposal used the Maybe we shouldn't try to be smart with replies and just give |
I'm not so sure about that. Non-technical users have no concept of a "from" header, they just want the message to go to the sender. This also aligns with the RFCs. Do you have data to the contrary? |
We display the information from the "Reply to sender" would also be the wrong name if it's used like this (message received via list2, but sender wants discussion to happen on list1):
|
To me, the most important thing is that "Reply (implicitly being to the sender" and "Replay All (which could involve list-post)" must be separate and that when people execute the "reply to sender" action, the reply should not end up being posted anywhere. I think it's fine to show "reply" as "reply to sender" to help people who don't get that this is what reply has meant forever. I think it's also fine to make "reply-all" use list-post headers and send the message to the list only. Doing this right requires a combination of
The second and third points are difficult, particularly given yahoo/DMARC. The reply-to header is only supposed to be added by the originator, and should only me an address of the originator. It is abuse for the sender to decide for replies to go anywhere else. It is also abuse for mailinglists to set it. It's also even more abusive for lists to change the From to an address that goes to the lists, (instead of a per-member alias that just goes to that member, or declining to accept members whose MTAs reject list mail). So I think what's needed in MUAs in general, is some way to detect misused From and Reply-To, perhaps by matching up list-post or list-id and values that correspond to those, and in that case, make reply grayed out with a popup that the is misconfigured (or softer if you are feeling charitable about this, which obviously I'm not) and refuse to perform the action because it can't be done. The key property is that no one should ever click "reply" and have their response be public. |
Dealing with mailing lists that rewrite Given the reality that My revised proposal:
This can't guarantee that "reply" will never make the response public. But I currently don't see how that could be achieved. |
Please don't do this, "reply to list" should be a separate option and only reply to the list. I'm fed up of people sending me duplicate messages to different folders by copying me in mailing list replies. |
Is this change going to actually happen soon? After an accidental and semi-embarrassing reply-to-list today - again - I've ended up here, and it's clear that many k9 users have been burned by this, not just me. Could we at least have an option - soon - to ignore List-Post? (In my view List-Post should have nothing to do with replying. It tells you how to write a new message to the list.) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
To get back to the discussion, there's absolutely mailing lists which very intentionally do (and I happen to be involved in running this one...): From: PG Bug reporting form noreply@postgresql.org Nearly every client out there correctly handles this (Thunderbird, by default, is broken but thankfully has an option to un-break it) and utilizes the Reply-To for replies, as one typically expects. I also agree with the comment above that List-Post header shouldn't be relevant for replies. That k-9 mail users aren't having this 'just work' is rather annoying. Please fix. |
The current behaviour is outright reckless what it comes to user's privacy. I have no idea whether or not it is against GDPR or some otherer regulations, but it certainly is non-standard and unethical. |
If a mailing list "abuses" reply-to, that's their decision and possibly fault. I suggest to just follow the standards. The original author of the message might have set the "reply-to" address to the list theirself, and thus except all replies to go there. |
Thats a nice list and I think it would be important to tackle this soon (unfortunately, I have no experience with JAVA). The options presented in the original post looks like a good alternative tough with the named reply options. Regarding list replies, the current behavior clearly differs from all other mailing clients I know. This is not a bad thing in general, but definitely leads to the mistakes discussed before in this thread. |
I just hit some very surprising "reply" behavior in k9mail: I hit "reply" and strangely my reply went to the list. Specifically, the email has
When I hit "reply" in K9mail, the email goes to In Thunderbird, for the very same mail, "reply" goes to This is with K9 6.400. IOW: many years later, users are still bitten by this strange k9mail decision to send replies to "list-post". Would be great to finally see this fixed. |
Is there currently even a way to reply just to the author of an email that was received via a mailing list? The only option I found is to "reply to all" and then remove all recipients except for the author. |
@cketti As the current behaviour is causing trouble to many people, would a PR doing following be acceptable:
|
I have probably an entire MIT graduating class who have thoughts on this. I would modify the @ilmaisin comment as follows:
|
I believe in "complex" situations the reply button should always invoke a menu with explicit options relevant to the situation so that no user invokes some default action which he doesn't fully understand by accident. Complex situation being for example If there is a cc, list-post, multiple recipients etc . I believe there is no single default behavior that will make everyone happy so make sure users don't miss the choice by accident. Having some options in settings would be second best but might still burn some users. I take mutt as an example that I know well, you can redefine "reply" in many ways but ultimately what saves me most of the time is that everything is displayed explicitly. |
Is this fixed (finally) in V6.602, or is that just my imagination? |
Sometimes users seem to be surprised about the way K-9 Mail selects recipients when the "reply" action is used. I'm proposing to add more options with names that hopefully make it clearer which addresses will be selected as recipients.
Proposed behavior described via examples:
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Displayed actions (in order):
Feedback is very welcome.
Update 1: Incorporated feedback from #3738 (comment)
Update 2: See #3738 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: