Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > But having a spurious Followup-To header should not send a mail
> > client into the weeds.
>
> It doesn't/won't send the client "into the weeds". The client handles it
> fine. That is part of the problem:-
But previously:
>>>> Followup-To: gmane.linux.debian.user
>>> Which means debian-user list subscribers replying have remove the:-
>>> CC: gmane.linux.debian.user
That is specifically where we disagree. A mail client should not do
that! A news client should do that when posting back to news. But a
mail client shouldn't be putting anything from Followup-To: into a CC
list. That isn't reasonable. I say that is sending the mail client
off into the weeds. It needs to decide if it is a mail client or a
news client and then do one or the other.
> 1. it would double the network load by creating a post to debian lists
> that is copied by gmane, as well as directly sending posting to the
> gmane news list using the news protocol. I suspect that gmane would
> filter out the duplicate. I get billed for upstream traffic - and I
> don't have a lot of bandwidth to spare.
And this is a chain / cascade from the above premise. Since I think
that a mail client should not be doing the CC then it won't be doing
the above either. The earlier problem causes the later problem. If
the earlier problem is fixed then the above problem doesn't exist.
> 2. my news/usenet account is separate to my internet account and usage
> based, so I try and use it only when necessary.
Sure. No disagreement there.
> > But then the client software should be smart enough to actually deal
> > with both.
>
> Oh but it does. Happily.
> I'd just prefer one or the other - in this case I have zero desire to
> post to gmane.
Me neither. For me it is a mailing list. But I accept that other
people like to use it as a news group. And I accept that there is a
news2mail / mail2news gateway between. Most of the time it doesn't
cause problems for this list. (But for some other lists that I
participate in the mail-news gateway can drive us crazy.)
> It's now on my long list of extensions to write - ("do you to post to
> the organ grinder or the monkey?")
:-)
> > I saw Enigmail in your mail header (as you saw mutt in mine)
>
> I did not know that - I had to look at the source, I'd assumed it
> wouldn't be sent as I don't sign posts to this list.
Your posts have this header in them:
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.1
And I assumed. I jumped to conclusions. My bad.
> :-) I didn't actually look at your header - just saw the little Mutt
> icon above your post - (just beside the route map).
Well, okay, but then it was your mail reader that looked at the
header! It was acting as your agent in the deal. :-) My messages
generally all have one of the two of these headers depending upon
which machine I am using. Which is of course is how your MUA knew to
give me the mutt icon.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Or:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> > Please substitute in the name of your mail user agent instead.
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110805 Icedove/5.0
For some reason I completely missed seeing that header. I see it
there now. It was defintely there before. But I didn't catch it when
I went looking for it. The sun was in my eyes.
> I'm glad we've got that all sorted (we have got it sorted - right?)
Yes. I think so.
Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature