On 06-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tyson> Considering most mailing lists seem to be configured to reject
> Tyson> email that isn't "From" the person on the list, I find this is
> Tyson> a pretty feeble argument. But it's the strongest argument for
> Tyson> not munging Reply-Tos on mailing lists. Even the mail RFC (I
> Tyson> forget the number) suggests using Reply-Tos for mailing lists.
>
> Chapter and verse, please. This may be the most valid of your
> arguments. Quote the RFC, and you may well have a point.
>
RFC-822:
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-
boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine
address. In the second case, an author may wish additional
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-
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.
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
originator and is intended to direct replies.
It doesn't actually say "mail lists", but I think this is what they
meant by "text message teleconferencing" with automatic distribution
services (it was written in 1983 ;-).
This in particular addresses my concern of information leaving
the list because private replies are the default.
For what is essentially a technical discussion list, I'd rather have
useful information recorded in the archives than in individual mail
folders.
> Tyson> With the current situation, what are the solutions to the 4
> Tyson> problems I outlined? -- and what is the likelihood of these
> Tyson> solutions actually solving problems (as opposed to the "spend
> Tyson> 30 seconds pruning your headers" solution, which given the
> Tyson> number of CCs on this list, is clearly not workable).
>
> I think people should get decent mail user agents. I never
> have to spend time pruning CC's. (and when I use other mail user
> agents, I _do_ trim the headers to follow good ettiquette). I also
> think it is bad policy to break standards to cater to rude people
> (those who do not follow good net ettiquette).
I accept your point that munging reply-tos is undesirable, but I'd like
to mitigate the problems (particularly the messages jumping from one
mailing-list to another -- this has bitten me, and it seems a number of
other people). But if munging is unacceptable, I'm open to other
suggestions.
Simply recommending a few good mailers in the Internet of the Debian
Developer's Reference talking about mailing lists (which is where it
says "no CCs") is a possible compromise (along with a quick explanation of
the problems with the common mailers). I'd be happy to write the text
for such a change and get it organized if you think this is a reasonable
compromise.
--
Tyson Dowd #
# Linux versus Windows is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # Win lose situation.
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~trd #
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
