[Nut-upsdev] Looks like the Tripplite SMART1500SLT support borked?

[Jeff Cunningham]

Arjen de Korte wrote:
> There we go once again... :-(
>
>     http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>     http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
>
> As you may have figured out by now, the adminstrators of this mailing 
> list consider this harmful. We don't want to force people to reply to 
> the mailing list, since there are also valid reasons not to. Not all 
> replies should go to the mailing list.
>
>> to the header of the list emails that go out and it would solve the
>> problem once and for all. That's what most lists do to keep replies on
>> the list. Its only natural to "reply" to an email and takes more work to
>> manually change the address each time to something other than what comes
>> up.
>
> You don't have to. Many if not all MUA nowadays either have the option 
> to 'reply to mailing list' or if that's not available, 'reply to all'.
>
>> The way it is now defaults to something that is against your policy.
>
> We don't have a policy, other than the request to keep list traffic on 
> the list.
>
> It also depends on the MUA you're using. If yours isn't clever enough 
> to figure out that when replying to a mailing list message, it should 
> either send the reply to the mailing list or at least ask what you 
> want, find a better one or learn to live with it's limitations.
>
> Best regards, Arjen

I suspect the reason you keep "going once again" on this is because 
there is a valid issue here that isn't being dealt with. The fact that 
the issue keeps being raised should tell you that.

Thanks for the links. It was an interesting discussion with some points 
I hadn't considered. But all and all I found the second argument much 
more compelling and adding a Reply-To: line makes more sense to me.  I'm 
using Thunderbird for an email client most of the time (mutt sometimes) 
because its faster and easier and I'm not going to change that just to 
accommodate a list with an admin who optimizes for interacting with elm 
and pine to the exclusion of the vast majority of clients of the day. It 
is clear elm and pine will work fine with or without the munged headers, 
so its not clear why such admin would prefer to continually be grousing 
at the absent minded who occasionally forget and hit "reply-to" in 
response to a list email rather than opt for the solution of least 
friction.  I guess some people like friction in their lives and the 
little feeling of superiority it gives them in pointing out whenever 
someone slips up and does something "wrong".

For what it's worth, the only argument I found at all compelling for not 
munging the header was this one:

    "When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I
    accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own
    damn lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list
    properly, no way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I
    stopped munging the very next day. "

I burned myself so badly once with an accidental Reply-All (when I'd 
intended a private reply) that I actually removed the capability from my 
client at work.

Still, I think - as the author in the second link points out - that it 
is ultimately my responsibility to be careful what I say in email rather 
than remove a capability from everyone else, and not having a Reply-To 
back to the list is a loss of capability. The original author can easily 
be put in the CC: line, which is where it usual goes. Something is 
gained. Nothing is lost. Some win. No one loses. Less mistaken traffic 
off list. Less grousing on the list.

Very respectfully,
Jeff