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

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:11:50PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use.
> > 
> > Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header!  The closest thing to a
> > registry that RFC822 implies is in the hands of SRI International is
> the thing about internet standards such as the RFCs is that they tell
> you what you *must* do, and what you *must not* do. as long as you
> follow those rules faithfully you are free to implement as many other
> good ideas as you like.

True, but you aren't free to bitch at people who follow the RFC's for
their failures (Branden...).  In fact, the header Branden's bitching
about is an animal of a wholly different color: the Mail-copies-to: header

Oh, BTW, I decided in the middle of this thread to finally throw in a
reply-to header.  You managed to email both myself and the list, so the
reply-to won't prevent people from privately emailing Branden: it didn't
prevent you from CCing the list (it's Reply-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu,
FWIW)--you see, I DO prefer CCs of list mail: it allows me to pay extra
attention to list mail directed at me.
> > http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/mail-headers/
> > 
> > (jpalme is as much of a member as one can be of the IETF RFC822 WG)
> > 
> > which says that a "Followup-To:" header is from RFC 1036, but RFC 1036 is
> > for USENET messages, not email.  The only thing I can think of is that
> > somebody liked the usenet idea of the followup-to: and just appended a
> > mail on it.  Just because somebody breaks the standards does NOT mean that
> > everybody should.  
> well done! it only took you a few years to catch on. that header has
> been in common usage for several years.
> btw, it's interesting that you mention Jacob Palme. take a look at the
> following document written by him in November 1997:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt

Curious he doesn't have in his updated RFC2097 (the URL I used)... Well, I
was looking for it, I found it (with your help).  Still, M-F-T is designed
for GROUP replies, not individual--from 2.2

The "Mail-Followup-To" header can be inserted by the sender of a
message to indicate suggestions on where replies, intended for the
group of people who are discussing the issue of the previous message,
are to be sent. Here are some ways of constructing this header:

Individual replies are still covered by the Reply-to: header, which is the
second away in alphabetical order from 98Dec proceedings (Chris Newman
at Innosoft wrote it):


2. Reply-To Current Practice

     The Reply-To header is currently used for the following purposes:

     (2) The author/sender can recommend an address or addresses to use
     instead of the "from" address for replies.

     (3) The author/sender can post to multiple mailing lists and
     suggest group replies go to only one of them.

     (4) When the author/sender is subscribed to a mailing list, he can
     suggest that he doesn't want two copies of group replies to
     messages he posts to the list.

     (5) A mailing list can suggest that the list is a discussion list
     and replies should be sent just to the list by default.
---end paste---

I believe that there is some bit of what this thread first started about
within those 4 items...

>     Network Working Group                                       Jacob Palme
>     Internet Draft                                 Stockholm University/KTH
>     draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
>     Expires: May 1998                                         November 1997
> > > > The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the
> > > > overflows in pine....
> > >
> > > incorrect, again. the difference between mutt and pine is that
> > > mutt is a decent piece of free software that works and follows the
> > > relevant standards, while pine is a broken piece of non-free shit
> > > which doesn't.
> >
> > Horsefeathers!  The Mail-followup-to: header is NOT a part of the
> > relevant standards!
> that wasn't what i said, and i in no way meant to imply that failure to
> implement an optional but well-documented and well-known header is what
> makes pine broken. pine is broken in numerous other ways.
> craig
> --
> craig sanders

Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu

Reply to: