K-9: "List-Post" header used as default "reply" in preference to "From".

[thematicmania]

Please search to check for an existing issue (including closed issues, for which the fix may not have yet been released) before opening a new issue: https://github.com/k9mail/k-9/issues?q=is%3Aissue

Expected behavior

When I reply to a message, I expect the reply to go to the "From:" header (or the "Reply-to" header not the "List-Post:" header.

Actual behavior

I have an email with both a "From:" header and a "List-Post:" header. All other email clients that I use when hitting reply create a draft email using the "From:" header, while K-9 uses the "List-Post:" header. When one does not notice this and hits send, one emails ones whole department (all 500 of them).

Steps to reproduce

1. Find an email and add, say, List-Post: [e-mail] to the header.
2. "Reply" to this email from within K-9, and one gets [email protected] as the auto-filled-in to address.
   3.

Environment

K-9 Mail version: 5.206
Android version: 6.0.1
Account type (IMAP, POP3, WebDAV/Exchange): IMAP

[philipwhiuk]

To me if you get an email from a mailing list the expected behaviour of an e-mail client is to want to reply to the mailing list, assuming there is not also set a Reply-To header (which obviously takes precedence).

Amongst other places this supported better behaviour on the common mailman implementation of headers.

At the time we debated (or at least mentioned) a separate 'Reply-List' intent but decided against it.

I don't think this is incorrect behaviour though I'm open to suggestions that preserve the ability to reply to the list (which I think is the common case) while allowing for the individual reply.

[gdt]

I disagree strongly. I expect to be able to hit "reply" to reply only to the author, and "reply all" to the author and the list. I do this fairly often on mailing lists. Just "reply" going to the list violates expectations and risks publishing private information -- it's just as bad as mailinglists inserting a list reply-to header. I had no idea k-9 behaved this way (but I filter list mail to mailboxes that I don't look at on my phone, because as awesome as k-9 is, it can't beat gnus on a real computer for ignoring mail in large quantities and I don't want to see anything I can defer for a day on my phone).

I can certainly see the point that "reply all" should use the List-Post value. There, it also might make sense to omit the From: address, as it seems some people (who seem particularly vocal) don't want to get direct copies of mail for lists they are on.

But, sometimes messages are sent to lists and a few other people, or two or more lists. While this is sometimes bad practice, I don't think we can judge in general.

So I'm left with implementing "reply" and "reply" all traditionally, and ignoring list-post.

What list-post would be useful for is generating a new message that isn't a followup. If an MUA sorted mail into folders based on list headers, then it could offer a "new message" option. That would save the list readers from hijacked threads, if the people that misuse reply for new subjects somehow new to use the new new-message option.

[thematicmania]

Thank you for taking an interest in this.

To my mind, the current behaviour certainly risks publishing private
information ... essentially that is what I did. Hence, I agree with Greg.

I am not an expert on mail clients, but my expectation was that K-9
(which I greatly value) would act in the same way as the other mail
clients that I use, e.g. thunderbird, gmail, squirrelmail all use the
"from" header rather than the "list-post" header.

I note that thunderbird has a "reply to list" option (which does use the
"list-post" header).

Stephen

On 20/06/17 13:33, Greg Troxel wrote:
>

I disagree strongly. I expect to be able to hit "reply" to reply only
to the author, and "reply all" to the author and the list. I do this
fairly often on mailing lists. Just "reply" going to the list violates
expectations and risks publishing private information -- it's just as
bad as mailinglists inserting a list reply-to header. I had no idea
k-9 behaved this way (but I filter list mail to mailboxes that I don't
look at on my phone, because as awesome as k-9 is, it can't beat gnus
on a real computer for ignoring mail in large quantities and I don't
want to see anything I can defer for a day on my phone).

I can certainly see the point that "reply all" should use the
List-Post value. There, it also might make sense to omit the From:
address, as it seems some people (who seem particularly vocal) don't
want to get direct copies of mail for lists they are on.

But, sometimes messages are sent to lists and a few other people, or
two or more lists. While this is sometimes bad practice, I don't think
we can judge in general.

So I'm left with implementing "reply" and "reply" all traditionally,
and ignoring list-post.

What list-post would be useful for is generating a new message that
isn't a followup. If an MUA sorted mail into folders based on list
headers, then it could offer a "new message" option. That would save
the list readers from hijacked threads, if the people that misuse
reply for new subjects somehow new to use the new new-message option.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/k9mail/k-9/issues/2588#issuecomment-309738793, or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGKYmzOCs8XmS1jDA-GaJF7kM31eVX6Kks5sF7wSgaJpZM4N7Fhi.

--
Stephen Email: S.J.[email protected]
[e-mail]

Address: Dr S.J. Cowley, DAMTP, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK
Telephone: [phone] URL: www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/sjc1/
http://damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/sjc1/

[hallexander]

I second the disagreement. Lately, I've on multiple occasions sent email to the mailing list instead of back to the sender, as was intended. One could argue I should have been more careful, but I always thought it was due to the sender setting reply-to headers or somesuch. I definitely didn't expect this behavior from an email client.

[clawoflight]

Both options are definitely needed.
The real question would be which one is to be the default, I guess; If reply to list is the default, I think there should be a visible warning about that (when replying to a list) for the above reasons.

[hallexander]

As it seems, there is now a "via [email protected]" line in the email header, indicating that an email is received via an email list. Not sure if that change was done with this issue in mind, but personally, I think it adds more clutter than usability. For all mailing lists I participate in, I can already tell from the "To" header that an email arrived via a certain list.

Alas, this issue remains.

[andrecarini]

I'd expect the address on top of the screen to be the destination address when using Reply, and the list itself to be included when using "Reply All" or maybe an additional button such as "Reply to List"

What's worse is that the behavior is inconsistent when replying to partially downloaded vs fully downloaded messages. The List-Post header usually does not get downloaded when you limit message retrieval to a few kilobytes, and as such the From header is used on partially downloaded and the List-Post gets precedence on fully downloaded messages. I've lost count of how many times I've replied to my whole university by mistake.

[thematicmania]

It is clear that there are two views. Could there not be a setting, with the default being the _status quo_?

[gdt]

Could someone read the RFCs and post a claim that one behavior is required? I have not pored over them, but I'm pretty sure that a "reply" operation going to List-Post is contrary to standards. A "followup" operation going to list-post (and perhaps only to that) sounds likely compliant.

[jeffix2000]

I'd like to support the claim for moving to the standard RFC 5322, be it a mailing list or not :
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3

We expect 'To:' in a reply to be populated by the original 'From:' except if there was a 'Reply-To'.

And this article, for instance, advocates well the case for NOT configuring mailing lists with the Reply-To: List option, which would have quite a similar effect to the current k9mail reply behavior.

[jeffix2000]

http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html

(Hit the button too quickly in my previous post - kind of incident that makes me savvy regarding reply-all incentives !)

[hallexander]

I'd like to support the claim for moving to the standard RFC 5322, be it
a mailing list or not :
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3

Indeed. And from section 3.6.2 above it:

The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message.  When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the address(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.

I hope that would be sufficient. I have never encountered a MUA that
behaves like K-9 does in this regard.

[cketti]

See #3738