Re: Duplicate messages on this list
On 08-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <email@example.com> writes:
> Kai> firstname.lastname@example.org (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in
> Kai> <email@example.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?
> Kai> No such thing. It is pretty clear to me (after the discussion on
> Kai> DRUMS) that there currently is no "perfectly standard" Reply-To:
> Kai> processing; the header is used in too many incompatible ways.
> Umm, can it be that there is no "perfectly standard" Reply-To:
> processing simply because too many lists stomped right over the RFC
> 822's first two examples of reply-to usage (namely, for the author to
> send mail elsewhare)? I'll re-read the RFC's in question (because of
> my disk crash, I have lost my mirror), but I have yet to read
> anything to convince me to break reply-to's by munging them.
Reply-To:s are already broken because there are no promises in RFC 822,
merely suggestions about how you might use them. You claim the first two
suggestions are more important than the last one (which approximates
reply-to munging for the lists).
> Kai> There are _no_ universally accepted, useful conventions for
> Kai> Reply-To:. Sad but true. 822 was too imprecise in it's
> Kai> definition, plus current mailing lists were unknown back then.
> From the quote on this mailing list, I think 822 was precise
> enough; but I am no expert.
I'm not an expert either, but since we can both point to it and say it
proves our point it seems quite inadequate! Since Kai seems to have
some expertise in this area, I'm prepared to trust his judgement.
> Kai> If you can't get your mailer to reply to From: when you want to,
> Kai> complain to it's programmer - it's broken.
> I thought that is the author sets reply-to, then that should
> be used for replies, and not from. I can reply to from: unless there
> is a reply-to, when that takes precedence. If people munge reply-to,
> I'll never knoe, will I?
As an aside, when munging reply-tos, if there is an existing reply to,
why not set the From: to that address.
Surely this would address most of the concerns. Or am I missing
something here (surely this has been thought of before).
Tyson Dowd #
# Linux versus Windows is a
firstname.lastname@example.org # Win lose situation.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .