Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:16:45 +1100 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
>setting reply-to on the list doesn't gain them anything. it does,
>however, break things for people who really need reply-to and makes
>their list (and my server) vulnerable to broken mailers.
>so that's a score of zero positives and two negatives. reply-to loses.
Lowered mailer load, loweder costs to the end user, less confusion, more
information to the list. I don't count that zero positives. No one needs
reply-to, and broken mailers are not the concern of the list.
>part of my job is to educate them in effective and appropriate uses of
>technology.
Like the use of the shift key?
>it's how i think of the stupid ones. being a sysadmin, which is partly
>a problem-solving role, my job puts me in contact with stupid users far
>more often than it puts me in contact with the smart ones.
And I've been in tech support for almost three years and sysadmin for for
a few months, and that is just my latest job. The only person I'm really
jaded to right now is you, does that tell you something?
>ok, i admit it...my attitude may be at least slightly arrogant. i've
>seen sufficient evidence over the years to tell me that it's justified.
Not when you're flat our wrong and refuse to explain yourself above petty
insults.
>my mailer isn't brain-dead. i chose to cc it to you because your message
>was in reply to me.
>if you don't want cc-ed replies, all you have to do is say so. your
>address has been trimmed from my reply...even though this should probably
>have been a private reply rather than public.
For the record, this is now at least the sixth time I will point out
directly to you that on this list CCs are discouraged unless requested.
Users should not have to discourage it on an individual basis!
>> No more accidental thread jumping from private to public lists.
>huh? this is one of the problems CAUSED by setting reply-to on the
>list. people are used to pressing R (or whatever) to reply and often
>don't notice until it is too late that they have sent a private message
>(personal, confidential, embarassing, or career-limiting) to a public
>mailing list.
Then get a decent MUA. And as he pointed out people often sent a private
reply publicly because the list address is buried in a mess of CCs.
>> 2. Stops CCs which clutter lists and increase download times (and
>> yes, of course OTHER things can fix this -- for example you could
>> unsubscribe or filter).
>yes, there ARE other ways of dealing with this which do not break
>functionality for those who need to use the Reply-To header.
But not for those who cannot access server side filtering which is an
ever increasing number of people.
>> > because the user wrote the message. they own it. it is up to them to
>> > decide where they want replies directed.
>> So set From:. That's what it's for.
>no it's not. read RFC-822. From is for the address that the message was
>sent from. Reply-To is for directing the address where replies should be
>sent to.
>strangely enough, the field names are no coincidence.
This field contains the identity of the person(s) who wished
this message to be sent. The message-creation process should
default this field to be a single, authenticated machine
address, indicating the AGENT (person, system or process)
entering the message. If this is not done, the "Sender" field
MUST be present. If the "From" field IS defaulted this way,
the "Sender" field is optional and is redundant with the
"From" field. In all cases, addresses in the "From" field
must be machine-usable (addr-specs) and may not contain named
lists (groups).
You have read 822, haven't you? "This field contains the identity of the
person(s) who wished the message to be sent. The message creation process
should /DEFAULT/ this field..."
My email addresses:
morpheus@calweb.com
morpheus@teleute.ml.org
morpheus@rpglink.com
greydmiyu@ultraviolet.org
morpheus@jps.net
morpheus@quiknet.com
I can adjust the From: line to any of those addresses because they are
valid and contains the identity of the person(s) who wished the message sent.
I see nothing in the RFC which states that the FROM *MUST* be set to a
broken address. If it were I'd be in deep bantha pudu since at work I send
morpheus@teleute.ml.org mail and from home I send morpheus@calweb.com mail.
According to your incorrect interpetation when I am sitting at work I have to
use one address and when at home I have to use another.
>maybe it should be, but it isn't. many MUAs don't support it,
Changne MUAs, that's your answer.
>many MTAs don't allow it, and many MTAs masquerade all mail that passes >through them. many systems prohibit it as policy.
Almost all MTAs allow local mail and the MTAs that do "masquerade all
mail that passes through them" certainly, to me, falls under the catagory of
a broken mailer. Breaking the list to fix bugs elsewhere is not a viable
option.
>in any case, that is what reply-to is for.
As is setting it for the mailing list.
>even the authors of an RFC can make mistake. they suggested that setting
>reply-to on a mailing-list was one possible use for the header. real
>world experience since then has shown that to be a flawed suggestion.
And we beg to differ with your *OPINION*.
>> Setting From is perfectly workable. Unless your ISP is broken.
>not everyone uses an ISP. many are behind corporate firewalls or at
>a university. they can use Reply-To to direct replies to their home
>account.
Then they should use the home account to read the mail in the first
place.
>cheap telnetable shell accounts are available all around the world.
>cheap mail-only accounts with filtering capabilities are also available.
>there are even people who can and will set up free uucp and/or
>multi-drop pop mail feeds for friends, acquaintances and so on (i've
>done this for several people who needed it and i know i'm not the only
>person who does this)
>nobody is dependant upon only their local isp.
And nobody needs reply-to for the exact same reasons you have just given.
Thank you.
--
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: