Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:21:19 +1100 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
>thinks that reply-to is a good idea really shits me. cleaning up the mess
>is a major headache. this happens with monotonous regularity, especially
>when one or more subscribers are behind some brain-dead NT mailer.
And as I said before, fix the server, not break the list.
>> - Setting Reply-To is called "munging" when the list admin
>> does it, but is called "setting" when the user does it.
>> Why the distinction?
>because the user wrote the message. they own it. it is up to them to
>decide where they want replies directed.
Once it is sent to the list the list is the last point of contact and
controls the message, not the user.
>i thought it was laughably lame criticism when he spammed me with it
>yesterday (after i expressly told him that i did not wish to receive a
>copy).
Yet you haven't once gone and and refuted it point for point. The best
you can muster is "it's lame."
>mailbox because of his inability to understand the phrase "i do not wish
>to correspond with you".
Because you failed to understand that if you stopped replying I'd stop
sending. I only replied.
>now isn't that a novel idea: receive mail you don't want? use well-known
>and readily available tools to filter it out. how bizarre! that must be
>some form of drug-induced lateral thinking, because the OBVIOUS solution
>is to munge everyone else's headers so that it doesn't happen as often.
The problem with this is not everone can filter until after it is
downloaded (I refer you to the discussion earlier this week I had about
filtering mail so people didn't have to read as much), it costs people money,
apparently people, such as yourself, don't know how to cull CC lists, etc,
etc, etc.
>Lamb thinks that because he has never met anyone that has needed to use
>Reply-To header, he is somehow right. that makes a lot of sense - his
>lack of experience in the real world somehow gives him insight into a
>problem he's never encountered. yeah, right.
It is a simple piece of logic which you have not refuted. If they have a
broken address and set the reply-to to a working address why not just use the
working address in the first place? You still haven't refuted that point,
either. You just foamed at the mouth claiming it was impossible. Well, gee,
if you have a valid address to direct people to, *USE IT*. If you insist on
using a broken address then you suffer the consiquences.
Also, let's not lose sight of what an individual reply-to gains the list.
Nothing. Not a damned thing. The individual can still get replies through
the list. If he wants private mail to get through, then he should be using
the working address and not the broken one.
>> Setting Reply-Tos are no more broken than running a list expecting
>yes, it is much more broken. it breaks functionality (i.e. the ability
>to set a reply-to header) which should be available to any email user.
They can set it. And the list can set it. When they send to the list
they know full well that the list can, and SHOULD, overwrite it.
>the "alternative" (i.e. NOT munging Reply-To) *IS* better. Setting a
>reply-to header is the sender's prerogative. mailing lists should not
>override that choice. ever.
The mailing list sent the mail out to me and the hundreds of other
recipiants. It appears to me it IS the sender's perogative.
>(btw, this isn't the "alternative", it is the default)
>the world isn't perfect. however, destroying useful functionality is
>worse than not destroying useful functionality...especially when there
>are better alternatives available (i.e. dupe filtering)
Tell that to the people who pay for their connection and they'll gladly
point out that they can't filter server side. They did to me and although I
came up with some compelling reasons for my arguement on this point I agree
with them. That is because I can't do server side filtering either. I set
up my own domain so I know that everything would be done right and the only
person to blame when things when wrong was me. That means the messages are
already on my system before I have a chance to filter them. The bandwidth
damage is already done.
I also pointed out the load to mail servers, another point you completely
ignored. Not only does it hurt the servers that have to send out all those
needless CCs (assuming people send to their ISPs SMTP server for
distribution) but it also hurts the servers on the recieving end who have to
deliver two copies of mail which, in the case if THIS LIST, should *NOT* be
sent out unless requested. I don't see too many people requesting CCs.
Now, I assume as a mail administrator you can understand that one or two
CCs here and there don't amount to much, but considering the number of users
on any given machine and how many mailing lists they may be on (I'm on 30
spread across two accounts) that adds up over the long haul.
Whether you like it or not, people do not responsibly cull CC lists. It
causes unneeded bandwidth usage and server load and there is *NOTHING* that
your ranting and raving will do to stop it.
But a reply-to. Wow, all of a sudden the mail goes right back to the
list, no CCs, people can still reply to the individual in over 99.9% of the
cases out there. In the other .1% I don't think the individual in question
"NEEDS" the mail to go elsewhere. Wants it to, maybe, but not NEEDS. If
they NEEDED it to go elsewhere, they would read and respond at that other
valid email address.
As for broken NT servers... Tough, fix the server, not mangle the list.
--
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: