[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Duplicate messages on this list

srivasta@datasync.com (Manoj Srivastava)  wrote on 06.12.97 in <873ek6icqc.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>:

> 	If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having
>  it munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken*
>  behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing
>  because some mailers are broken out there?

No such thing. It is pretty clear to me (after the discussion on DRUMS)  
that there currently is no "perfectly standard" Reply-To: processing; the  
header is used in too many incompatible ways.

After much discussion, the experts seem to agree in only one point: the  
way Reply-To: is used for replies in _most_ programs is essentially  

We're even considering deprecating Reply-To: completely in favour of  
several new headers. No decision has been reached yet, however.

> If your mailer is broken,
>  protest to the author, don't ask other people to break email
>  conventions to cater to broken mailers.

There are _no_ universally accepted, useful conventions for Reply-To:. Sad  
but true. 822 was too imprecise in it's definition, plus current mailing  
lists were unknown back then.

> 	Yes, but there are times when discussion is taken
>  off-line. You break the reply-to address, and people can no longer be
>  reached off-line. Such gratitous breakage just for broken mailers?

If you can't get your mailer to reply to From: when you want to, complain  
to it's programmer - it's broken.

(As to "From: is broken", Reply-To: was _never_ meant to fix that. From:  
_should_ be settable by the mail sender - read 822 if you don't believe  
me. Mailers (or system setups) that don't allow you to do that are  
_clearly_ broken. From: is not, and never has been, meant for any sort of  
authentication info.)

>  electronic mail standards and convention, is none of our business. We
>  *shoul* *not* break it.

Sorry. No can do. You will always break it for someone.

> 	I think people should get decent mail user agents.

There don't seem to be many that match your definition of "decent".  
(Incidentally, that's part of why I'm still thinking about writing my  

Maybe we should make a list. You seem to like GNUS; obviously, that's no  
solution for people who hate Emacs.

MfG Kai

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: