Seth Goodman wrote:
> I am well aware of the differences between the two standards. You would do
> well to read them both carefully as well as RFC1123.
Apparently not since you got them backwards and couldn't even see the
problems in your own argument.
> In the redistribution case, the only prohibition for 2822 headers is that
> the list MUST NOT change the From: header. The Reply-To: header is optional
> in the first place, and as the new originator, the list is free to do what
> it wants with it.
Incorrect. Go reread my message again. When you think the above, reread
my message AGAIN until it gets through your head. RFC 2822 prohibits changing
of reply-to. It is reinforced from several casses. RFC2821 has no bearing.
> To show that the list is resending the message, rather
> than just forwarding it, most lists set the Sender: header to the list
> address. Thus, there are two headers, MAIL FROM: in the envelope and
> Sender: in the body where the list explicitly claims to be originator.
And the addition of the resent-* headers and list headers (RFC2369?).
Here's the relevant headers from your submission to the list:
List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:17:15 -0500 (CDT)
> See the above. You don't seem to understand the concept of message
> origination.
I understand it quite well. Reread my message again. Your mistake is
thinking my "30 second peek" was the totality of my experience with these
RFCs. I've been debating this very issue for years. The 30 second peek was a
REFRESHER. So reread the message again. Print it out and hang it on your
wall until it penetrates your brain.
> That is the only the case for transit between the original author and the
> destination. Once the mailing list MX accepts the message, it is deemed to
> have achieved final delivery and that message's life is over.
Incorrect. Read the message again. Reinjecting does not end the
message's life. Hell, the Message-ID doesn't change. It defines what headers
can and cannot touch!
> The mailing
> list creates multiple new messages which it reinjects into the transport
> environment with new recipients. The list is the originator of each of
> these messages. Since these are new messages, the mailing list is free to
> do what it wants with everything except the From: header.
And yet you're the only person who has EVER said that about RFC2822 which
was written to provent just that interpretation. Care to explain?
> You are misunderstanding what the standard is about. The party who submits
> the message fills in the originator fields.
Quite aware of that. What you're misunderstanding is thinking reply-to
can be touched when it is clear it should not.
> Yes, for a completely different case. This is end user resending, not
> mailing list redistribution. They may appear similar, but they are distinct
> cases.
And yet the mailing list here is doing just that.
>>So follow the trail. Sender should not be set if sender/from
>>would be the same. In the case of a mailing list this is not
>>the case so sender is allowed to be touched. Reply-to is
>>specifically delecated to the author of the message, not the
>>resending agent.
> That is your opinion only. You are grossly oversimplifying the situation.
No, it is fact. Reread the message again, reread the spec and drop your bias.
>>In short, Seth, there is no wording in RFC2822 which even remotely
>>suggestions that mailing lists can touch reply-to. None.
> More importantly, there is nothing that says they can't.
Reread my message again. You're up to about 10 rereads. It is clear as day.
> Most mailing lists
> _do_ change Reply-To:, so your insistence on the one true interpretation is
> quite irrelevant. You can't change that and neither can I. Get a life.
They do so incorrectly against spec. Hate to break it to you but if
you're coming to this list looking for support in favor of ignoring open
standards in lieu of closed, propietary, de facto, every changing standards
you're in for quite a shock.
Argue that the RFC is wrong. Argue that the RFC should be changed.
That's all fine and good as long as you get your facts straight. But argue to
ignore interoperability standards at your own peril.
>>At all. Want to know why? Well, that's where the history lesson comes
>> in.
> Oh wonderful, you are going to give me a history lesson? Where do I get off
> this bus.
You signed up when you got the RFCs backwards in them (dis)allowing
reply-to munging.
>> RFC822 *DID* mention it, quite explicitly.
> <irrelevant citation snipped>
IE, "whoops, I didn't see that and it is a pesky fact which gets in the
way of my dogma."
> Published in 1982 before mailing lists, as we know them today, were even
> conceived of.
Sounds like they were as it describes them pretty accurately. Just
because there have been improvements on the terminology and technology doesn't
change what is in the RFC.
> I really don't care what you argued in 1990. That was then and this is now.
> Industry practice is what it is. You can ignore and pretend or you can
> accept how things are really done and get on with it.
And yet you talked about the "30 second peek". Hint, been doing it for
years, boyo. That means some familiarity with RFC you lack.
> The debate ended long ago when most mailing lists began setting Reply-To: as
> they please.
Which doesn't mean jack. If everyone did what they wanted willy-nilly
where would we be? First off, not having this conversation as the entire
system would collapse as there would be no interoperability! RFCs exist as a
common basis of behavior. When anyone violates them it provides a clear path
on how to deal with it for interoperability. Those who violate it are in the
wrong and it is perfectly acceptable to roll over them.
> That's an interesting hypothesis, but you didn't write the standard and you
> don't know why they changed the language. Not that it matters, it still
> doesn't change existing practice.
Neither do you and yet you seem to think you know what was going on and
got everything wrong. What does that tell you?
>>No, it is not inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate when the
>>author of the reply deems it so. For example if the author of the
>>reply is offering help and giving personal information which is to
>>be used solely by person he is replying to the author should not
>>EVER be forced to post that information to a public forum.
> That can happen, but it is not the general case. The great majority of
> responses to questions on a mailing list belong on the list so that
Never said it was the general case. Said it was appropriate and that it
is the author of the reply who decides. You don't get to decide and your
opinion on it being inappropriate is irrelevant.
> This is the reason for a public mailing list. Offlist replies are the
> exception, not the rule.
Which is a far cry from them being "entirely inappropriate."
> I didn't say they don't exist, only that it is the exception and
> inappropriate in the normal case.
No, you didn't say they were the exception. You didn't acknowledge there
was an exception. Nice revisionist history there. Check the archives for you
exact wording.
> Why do most other mailing lists set Reply-To: to the list?
Because they're RFC ignorant.
>>>The purpose for a public mailing list is to have a
>>>public conversation, with one answer hopefully satisfying many
>>>readers with the same question.
>>That is one of many reasons.
> That is the primary reason and the only one that justifies volunteers
> putting in effort to answer questions. If it was meant to be a one-on-one
> conversation, a public mailing list would not be the medium of choice.
You're presuming that all mailing lists are about answering questions.
Might I point out that a good many mailing lists aren't about answering
questions but are about community and discussing items of common interest with
people of a like or not-so-like mind?
>>Not significantly wider than lists without reply-to.
> Even proponents of the way this list operates admitted that it was different
> from the rest of the world.
Then they are ignorant of the rest of the world. The vast majority of
lists I'm on, both technical and not, do not set reply-to. Debian isn't the
exception to the rule here, it is just on one side of the debate than some
other lists and it stands in good company.
The major difference that they were referring to was that Debian lists
explicitly prohibit CCs unless requested. That is the portion that is
different than other lists that don't set reply-to.
> I guess no one asked you when the present practice became the norm. This
> list is the one with the compatibility problem.
Try again. You even misunderstood the portion that the list varied on.
>>Yes, and most of those are using Outlook or Outlook Express!
> Among a lot of others. When you have a de facto standard, it doesn't matter
> if you like the source of it or not. I don't like the source of this one,
> but that doesn't change things a whit.
Among others? Such as? Most others outside the Microsoft world support
list replies based on relevant lists. So much so that Thunderbird's lack of
that feature is considered a bug and is one of the most often requested
features mentioned on this list. What does that tell you? Wait, don't answer
that, let me tell you since you'll get it wrong. It tells you that list=reply
enjoys a far greater acceptance than you seem to think.
>>Are you now arguing those are better than the alternatives,
>>zombie spam, virus vector and all? :P
> Nope, just that this is what current practice is, whether you or I happen to
> like it or not.
If current practice is wrong then current practice should change; not be
frozen in time in spite of what you think.
> What we have is compliance with a de facto standard. An open standard would
> have been better, but it didn't work out that way. You can't turn time back
> and you can't change what is.
Why not? How do you think the de facto standard got to how it was in the
first place. People decided to do it and it happened. People can be convince
to move to a better behavior and it can happen.
>>Mailing lists don't touch reply-to. They set List-Post. MUAs honor
>>reply-to on replies when it is set or go to From if it isn't. MUAs honor
>>List-Post when replying to the list.
>>What have we gained? Uhm, clear separation of list replies versus
>>personal replies, the intended functionality of reply-to intact,
>>list-replies still work. Everyone's happy.
> Except that no one is going to implement your proposal. Looks like you're
> the only one who's going to be unhappy.
...
Most mailing list software today sets List-Post and there is a growing
number of clients that support List-Post. So much so that those who lack the
feature are often requested to do so. Want to tell me again that it won't
happen WHEN IT ALREADY IS? Now who's ignoring reality, Seth? Certainly isn't me.
> First of all, it's not _my_ way. It's the way that everyone else decided to
> operate, so don't shoot the messenger.
No, it's your way when you:
A: Defend it.
B: Misinterpret the RFCs to defend it.
C: Encourage it.
D: Refuse to help move to a better method of doing things.
> It really doesn't matter what the
> original drafters of those standards intended, which is very debatable
> anyway.
Only in your warped little mind, Seth. The debate was put to rest in 2001
when 2822 came out.
> What has become general practice works well enough. As far as your
> List-Reply: proposal, there's nothing wrong with it on technical grounds, it
> just is never going to happen since the problem is already solved.
The problem has not been solved as it is against RFCs, causes problems
when Reply-To is set by the author and is already gaining acceptance.
> In your minority opinion.
What you think is the minority opinion.
> I didn't write those RFC's nor did I establish the practices that now exist.
You sure like to misinterpret them though.
> It has nothing to do with what I want. I don't want Microsoft to exist, but
> that doesn't change the fact that they control the majority of desktops
> today. I won't ignore that, even though I dislike it.
Then bowing to bad behavior isn't the way to achieve that goal.
> A tiny minority of deployed MUA's on a minority OS meet your criteria. And
> exactly how does that makes me ignorant?
A tiny minority? 'scuse me, more MUAs support it than don't. Educate
thyself.
> Why do you call me ignorant when I simply point out how things are?
Because you ignore the fact that mailing list software already sets those
headers. Have been for years. You ignore the fact that more MUAs than not
honor them. You ignore the fact that there are more lists that don't set
reply-to than you think. You ignore the fact that the proponents were
admitting Debian disallowing CCs was the exception, not that it didn't set
reply-to. The fact you ignore what the RFCs say.
> So you really believe that there has been a huge groundswell of complaints
> about how mailing lists and MUA's currently operate? Gee, I must have
> missed that.
No. I stated, quite clearly, was that there has been a decades long
debate on whether the RFCs allowed it or not. That debate was addressed.
> The real pesky fact here is that precious few lists and MUA's
> operate the way you would like them to and people on those lists don't
> complain. That's a bit hard to explain. Surely, the majority of mail
> system admins have read the same standards we are discussing. The other
> pesky fact is that no one cares if you think it is wrong.
No one? I think you need to rethink that number.
> You've got a lot of gall to publicly state the above. I'm a newcomer to
> this list, but no newcomer to email standards and practice.
You are when you so grossly misrepresent the RFCs.
> I certainly don't need any instruction from you.
You certainly do when you are ignorant of where the debate started and
where it was put to rest.
> As far as having "egg on my face", it
> seems that since most lists and MUA's operate the way that I have described,
> you have a much bigger credibility problem than I.
Ah, yes, you who gets the RFCs wrong, aruging in favor of bad behavior,
against good behavior and gets pretty much everything wrong. The only thing
you've got is that there are a goodly number of lists that set reply-to. You
can't even prove it is a majority. Your position would be laughable if it
weren't so sad.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature