On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 06:08:34AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 22:48:10 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> >quite lucid. and accurate too: setting the reply-to back to a list is
> >brain-damaged.
>
> If only you could prove that, eh?
See below..
> >not all mail clients prompt, you moron. don't assume that the behaviour
> >YOU personally prefer in a mail client is what everyone else prefers.
> >some people prefer to use real mail clients on a unix box.
>
> Which is why I said, and I quote, "Most modern email clients." Two
> examples I have were mutt and pine.
If you assume EVERYONE uses a 'modern' email client then your in for a
nasty surprise.
>
> >l is for list reply
>
> Once configured for each list and heaven forbid if the list changes.
Which happens at most, what, once a year? If that?
>
> >setting the Reply-To header breaks that. it LOSES functionality for no
> >benefit at all.
>
> Unproven.
Hmmmm, lets see, I'm sending from a public terminal, probably configured
to not allow one to alter the From: field to prevent forgery's, now, how
do I make sure people can actually reply to my mail?
I just set the Reply-Ty: field, no, wait, I can't because the list
overwrites it..
Oh well, who EVER needs to send from anything other then their main
system? Hmmm, I'm sure a good number of us have been in that spot at
least once..
> >if someone is using a Reply-To: header for their intended purposes (i.e.
> >to direct personal replies to their preferred address) and a mailing
> >list stomps over that header then it is impossible to send that person a
> >private reply.
>
> One of the intended purposes was mailing lists. Read the RFC, 822. You
> *have* read the RFC, haven't you, Craig? I mean, you can cuss up a storm
> but it doesn't appear that you know how to do much of anything other than
> that.
Hmm, let me quote
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 own.
So, the last listed use, out of three, which 'may be of some help', is
/THE/ intended purpose of the field, and in a case which is at the moment
fine, we should kill the first two uses?
I'm missing something here, I hope..
> >it is indeed trivial if the mailing list doesn't stomp on the reply-to
> >header.
>
> And trivial if a mailing list set is, as is allowed PER THE RFC.
No, read just a little more..
4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
For systems which automatically generate address lists for
replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:
<snip>
o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should
go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to
the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.
As per the RFC, a reply should NOT go to the address in the From: field
if a Reply-To: field exists, so if you overwrite it you are preventing a
easy reply to the sender...
Zephaniah E. Hull..
(Who just wants this debate to end, without the list squashing Reply-To:
fields..)
<snip>
> - --
> Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
> ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
<snip>
--
PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@whitestar.soark.net>-GPG E65A7801
Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys.
CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.
Attachment:
pgpW3CWQpeP7M.pgp
Description: PGP signature