Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:58:26 +0100
- From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> >> My preference is for any personal replies addressed to me to go to
> >> me, and I'd use the Reply-to header (as intended) if I needed it to
> >> go somewhere else. But replies to the list should go to the list
> >> (only) (unless otherwise requested), as per list policy.
> > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely
> > your problem.
> That does seem to be the trend and position of the world, especially in
> recent years, but I disagree as a matter of philosophy.
> A mailing list whose subscribers can post to it is a discussion forum.
However, for debian-user, non-subscribers can also post. So, for mail
without a "Mail-Followup-To:", it may be difficult to do the "right"
> Replies to a message which was posted to a discussion forum should, by
> default, go back to that forum. If the poster wants the replies to go
> somewhere else, it is that poster's responsibility to indicate this
> fact, whether by message headers, signature comments, explicit
> statements in the body of the message, or some other means.
I would say that to avoid ambiguities, in any case, the poster should
use a "Mail-Followup-To:" to indicate what he wants (unless he doesn't
Just like for "date -d", ambiguities should always be avoided.
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)