| Summary | Interface misleads users into losing messages |
| Queue | IMP |
| Queue Version | 4.3.2 |
| Type | Bug |
| State | Duplicate |
| Priority | 2. Medium |
| Owners | |
| Requester | agullo (at) ati (dot) es |
| Created | 12/16/2008 (6045 days ago) |
| Due | 12/16/2008 (6045 days ago) |
| Updated | 12/16/2008 (6045 days ago) |
| Assigned | |
| Resolved | 12/16/2008 (6045 days ago) |
| Github Issue Link | |
| Github Pull Request | |
| Milestone | |
| Patch | No |
State ⇒ Duplicate
oversee. The 'Blame the people for not learning to do things our
way' approach I think is out of any serious usability conception.
that is mandated by RFC-2822:
"The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
"From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
reply."
In this case, the operator of the mailing list (the originator of
mailing list messages) has decided not to munge the reply field. If
you don't like that, your should complain to the people operating the
mailing list.
Priority ⇒ 2. Medium
Patch ⇒ No
Milestone ⇒
Queue ⇒ IMP
Due ⇒ 12/16/2008
Summary ⇒ Interface misleads users into losing messages
Type ⇒ Bug
State ⇒ Unconfirmed
users into addressing their list messages to the wrong address, which
results in the mail list missing messages without anyone noticing.
My report, numbered 7782, was answered in a quickly way which I do
appreciate. I've been told the usability bug I reported of is
actually a deliberate choice related to some ancient discussion about
"Reply-To" munging which I just think is way off its time. But then,
IMP is Open Source, and released under a license that allows me to use
it for free, and I should be just happy about people making it. So
all right, I can accept IMP has got to have different options, one for
replying to the sender and another to replying to the mail list.
Still, messages are getting lost, and that is a fault I cannot
oversee. The 'Blame the people for not learning to do things our way'
approach I think is out of any serious usability conception.
Usability is about to make things work the way people expects them to.
We are in 2008, and today when people clicks on a 'Reply' option
expects to send the reply *to the same place it came from*, and that
includes mail lists.
So, all right, keep the separated options for replying to the sender
and to the mail list. But then, I you do so, if you're smart enough
to detect the messages that need a 'Reply to list' option, then don't
allow the option for replying to the sender to be named 'Reply'. This
is only misleading - you're fooling people into getting their messages
lost. Rename that option into 'Reply to sender', and that will be
just fine.
Thank you for your attention.