On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Kenneth Stephen wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >
> > > Friday, December 10, 1999, 4:04:47 AM, RAVIKANT wrote:
> > > >
> Exactly. See also http://garcon.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> > Furthermore, I think that the original problem of getting two
> > copies of the same mail can be solved easily by using procmail.
>
> They're still transmitted twice.
>
> If you want to get the receipient to reply only to the list or to
> you personally, use the Mail-Followup-To: header. Set it to the
> list so modern mail programs will use that address if you hit group
> reply.
>
Joey,
This is an excellent idea. Thanks!
However, I couldnt help but notice a reply from Steve Lamb to your
link on debian-devel (dont know why he did that since the Reply-To is set
to this list). Here is the link that he mentions :
http://www.unicom.com/BBS/bbs_forum.cgi?forum=replyto&read=000038-000000.msg&session
=385142a809215317&use_last_read=on&last_read=0
I must say that this represents the usual attitude I've seen from
close-minded admins (who thankfully are few and far between) : if the
behaviour that I dislike is allowed by the RFC's, the hell with the
RFC's!
Specifically, I'd like to address point 4 of his reply to the link
that you quote. Once this is demolished, I think that all of his other
responses become laughable :
I quote :
This is the most valid of the points. However, it is also quickly
dismissed. Because three events must happen for this to become a valid
arguement.
1: The person must be sending from an account that s/eh cannot
recieve mail from.
While this may have been true in the past, in most cases people are
reading/sending mail from the account they want the mail go to. In the 7
years I've been
using email and the 2 years of working at an ISP I have only seen
the reply-to used twice. Both times it was because a person was switching
to a new account
and wanted an effective way to get people in the habit of sending
to the new address. In such cases the mailing lists are usually the first
to move to the new
address. Aside from a 1-2 day overlap, there really is no danger of
missing any mail.
2: The person reading the message wants to reply.
The vast majority of people who read mailing lists lurk. They don't
reply. In their case it doesn't matter what the reply-to is set to. It is
only when the person
replies that it matters.
3: The person replying wants to make it a private reply.
Most replies go back to the list. So there has to be a reason to
send a private reply.
End quote.
In the following the "you" refers to Steve Lamb, not Joey.
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.
Subpoint 2 : And if the reader does want to reply, then what? Is it your
holy decree that such subscribers should not be replied to?
Subpoint 3 : What??!! This doesnt make sense at all. Surely you mean "the
person sending the email wants the replier to make it a private reply". In
that case, it is really not upto the list-admin to prevent this behaviour.
Regards,
Jor-el
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
>
>
"Ain't that something what happened today. One of us got traded to
Kansas City."
-- Casey Stengel, informing outfielder Bob Cerv he'd
been traded.
