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

Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)

On 03 Nov 1998 18:15:14 +0800, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote:

>>>>>> "TD" == Tyson Dowd <trd@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:

>    TD> 1. Keeps discussion on the list.  No more seeing requests for
>    TD> help and wondering if anyone else has helped them yet.  No
>    TD> more information falling off the list.  No more accidental
>    TD> thread jumping from private to public lists.

>  Here you argue to increase list traffic...

    Yes, increase unique list traffic.

>    TD> 2. Stops CCs which clutter lists and increase download times
>    TD> (and yes, of course OTHER things can fix this -- for example
>    TD> you could unsubscribe or filter).

>  ...and here you argue that increased list traffic is bad.

    No, CCs duplicates of what the user is already getting from the list is
bad.  Two different beasts.

>    TD> Not according to RFC-822.
>    TD> Setting From is perfectly workable.  Unless your ISP is
>    TD> broken.

>  Here you call upon RFC822 to support you, and elsewhere you demand
>that Reply-To be clobbered, thus making it impossible for it to serve
>it's RFC822 purpose.

    Incorrect.  RFC822 also supports using reply-to with mailing lists.

        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
        uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   In  the  first
        case,  the  author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
        boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
        address.   In  the  second case, an author may wish additional
        persons to be made aware of, or responsible for,  replies.   A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their

    "A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: 
include the address of that service in the "Reply-Tp" field of all messages
submitted to the teleconferece; then participants can "reply" to the
conference submissions to guarentee the correct distribtion of any submission
of their own."

    In short, reply-to that points to the list is an intended use of
reply-to, thus rendering your point of it not allowing the intended use of
reply-to moot.

>more recipients, depending on how clever it is). With Reply-To
>munging, their function is a *subset* of what it should be - author
>reply does not reply to the author.

    This is incorrect as you can reply on the from line.  In many mailer's
cases reply-to is not ever set and you must go by the from line.

>  I personally have been bitten on several occasions by this. Not
>always by forwarding deeply personal information to a larger than
>intended audience, but by broadcasting mail that was not required to
>be broadcast.

    Then get a better MUA.  I have not ever sent out private mail on a list. 
That is because when the reply-to differs from the from field my MUA (be it
pine or PMMail/2 or PMMail98 to date) *asks* me which address I want to use. 
To me that is increase functionality, not decreased.

>In some cases, it's a question of list administrators
>trying to boost their list volumes. From my perspective, protocol
>purity dictates that Reply-To be left untouched.

    I suggest you read the protocol again.  I have and see clear indications
that mailing lists setting reply-to is not against "protocol purity" because
it is not only not dismissed, but it is encouraged in the relevant RFC in

         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.

Reply to: