Re: Mailing list headers [Was Re: ssh vs telnet - which is faster?]
Quoting Steve Lamb (morpheus@rpglink.com):
> Saturday, December 11, 1999, 7:41:18 AM, Jor-el wrote:
[...]
> > Subpoint 1 : Just because you havent had experience with such behaviour
> > doesnt give you a mandate to wipe out such RFC allowed behaviour. As I've
> > said in another email : if you dont like it, write up another RFC and get
> > it approved.
>
> I don't wipe out such behavior. In fact, as one of the *OPEN* minded
> admins out there I don't throw away the RFC just because I don't like it.
> In fact, let me quote to you the 2nd paragraph of my message which you
> obviously skipped.
>
> "First off, as pointed out in another part of this forum one of the intended
> uses of the reply-to field is mailing lists (called discussion lists) and is a
> part of 822. Keep this in mind."
>
> For those playing along at home, that is section 4.4.3 of RFC822.
>
> "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."
>
> In short, administrators who do not set the reply-to on their lists and, in
> fact, falsely claim that such a thing is disallowed are the ones who are close
> minded and are saying "to hell with the RFC's [sic]!"
You claim to quote section 4.4.3 of RFC822, yet you left most of it
out, removing the context. Who exactly is to "include" the address?
Here's the whole section (indented) with my refs in the margin:
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical
uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first
case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail- 1
boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine
address. In the second case, an author may wish additional 2
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- 3
To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; 4
then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to
guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
own.
Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport
service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended
to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes-
sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message 5
originator and is intended to direct replies.
I don't see anything that allows a mailing-list to change the
Reply-To field, for three reasons:
a) The uses marked 1 and 2 above would be trampled on.
b) It is quite clear from references to the "author" at 1 and 2, and
"message originator" at 5, that "include" (ref 3) is also directed
at the author.
c) In case you're not convinced of (b), it says "submitted *to* the
teleconference" at ref 4, i.e. the originator still has to set this
field when submitting to the mailing-list.
It appears that you yourself have used this feature (ref 3/4) and set
Reply-To to the list, so that you don't get a personal copy of my reply
(even if I had replied rather than group-replied).
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Reply to: