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

Re: buildd and experimental

Floris Bruynooghe <fb102@soton.ac.uk> [...]
> But I've heard people claiming M-F-T is not a proper standard (despite
> not having an X- in the header) and even being broken. [...]

If I recall correctly, you can look in the IETF DRUMS working
group archive and you'll see it not becoming a proper standard
there. You can argue that DJB is a one-man standards body, but
I won't agree with its standards process ;-)

MFT is broken by design. No-one should expect to remote control other
people's mail clients. All one can do is ask and if you want to ask in
the headers, fine, but don't go flaming when it gets lost in the noise.
All of From, Reply-To and List-Post seem more useful to me than MFT's
wrongheaded confusion of Reply-To and Followup-To.

> And I agree that in the end it is down to the user to comply with the
> mailing list policy.  Although that in the Debian case I regard
> setting M-F-T to myself (and the list) as an explicit CC request.

It's a poor way to request. Many mail clients hide it by default,
so it doesn't seem very explicit.

Hope that helps explain,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: