Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 27/03/13 14:40, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > I created it, as far as I recall, from my copy direct from Ulrich, 
> > which had no Mail-Followup-To
> 
> Correct, the problem originated when you replied[1] to Werner's mail[2].
> Werner's mail had the following header:
> 
> Mail-Followup-To: "Julian H. Stacey" <j...@berklix.com>, gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> 
> The difference between that line and a simple Reply-to-All is that Werner 
> would
> be in the recipient list with the Reply-to-All, and not with the
> Mail-Followup-To. Your reply should have only had gnupg-users@gnupg.org and 
> your
> manually added CC to Ulrich as recipients, since your MUA would conclude that
> you don't need to CC yourself :).
> 
> > I'm familiar with Reply-to:  Not familar with Mail-Followup-To:
> > What's the difference ?
> 
> Because Reply-To didn't really work out in practice for mailing lists, DJB 
> came
> up with two "non-canon" mail headers to remove ambiguity from the meaning of 
> the
> Reply-To header. He describes it in [3]. Not everybody agrees with his
> view/solution, though.

The quoted [3]<http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html> contains:
        News: The following list is obsolete. Daniel Faber has
        collected a newer list of Mail-Followup-To implementations
        at http://www.leptonite.org/mft/software.html.
which contains refs to claws mail etc ...
        http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1441
                "Status:        RESOLVED WONTFIX" ... 2007 2008 ... 
                Colin Leroy 2008-07-05 15:52:44 CEST 
                I'm marking this WONTFIX.
So
        Claws-mail project have no interest to implement Mail-Followup-To ..
        & Claws-mail is a modern mailer (a friend who used to use
        EXMH reckons claws-mail is slicker/ better/ more modern than
        exmh he used & I still use)


http://larve.net/people/hugo/2000/07/ml-mutt
        "It is not a standard .. a hack that can potentially do
        more harm than good"

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
        Includes reply-to
        Does NOT include Followup-To

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/43/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
        The ''Mail-Followup-To'' header
        November 1997 ... Internet-Draft

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2076
        3.5 Response control
        ...  "ambiguous, since" ... controversial ...  RFC 822 RFC 1036
        author

Reply-to:
        Works fine on lists I run with majordomo on berklix.org
        seems to help lots of people running a variety of MUAs on 
        Microsoft & Unix etc do better than they did before.

Peter off list sent me a PS:
        > Oh, and BTW, I couldn't easily find whether EXMH supports
        > Mail-Followup-To (which makes me lean towards: no, it
        > doesn't, because you'd expect documentation to show up if
        > it did).

I looked (after doing a'make patch' to extract
source trees on latest FreeBS current ports)

        cd /pri/FreeBSD/branches/-current/ports/mail/exmh2
        find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Followup-To {} \;
        
        find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Reply-To {} \;
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/exmh.CHANGES
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/exmh.README
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/exmh.TODO
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/html/exmh-faq.html
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/html/exmh.CHANGES.txt
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/html/reference.html
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/thread.tcl
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/misc/mhthread
        ./work/exmh-2.8.0/misc/mhthread-manpage.html
        
        cd /pri/FreeBSD/branches/-current/ports/mail/nmh
        find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Followup-To {} \;
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/DIFFERENCES
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/FAQ
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/TODO
        ./work/nmh-1.5/etc/replgroupcomps
        
        find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Reply-To {} \;
        ./work/nmh-1.5/ChangeLog
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/ChangeLog_MH-3_to_MH-6.6
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/ChangeLog_MH-6.7.0_to_MH-6.8.4.html
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/DIFFERENCES
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/FAQ
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/MAIL.FILTERING
        ./work/nmh-1.5/docs/TODO
        ./work/nmh-1.5/etc/digestcomps
        ./work/nmh-1.5/etc/replcomps
        ./work/nmh-1.5/etc/replgroupcomps
        ./work/nmh-1.5/man/mh-format.man
        ./work/nmh-1.5/test/forw/test-forw-digest
        ./work/nmh-1.5/test/repl/test-multicomp
        ./work/nmh-1.5/test/repl/test-trailing-newline
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/forwsbr.c
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/mhlsbr.c
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/post.c
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/rcvdist.c
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/replsbr.c
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/slocal.c
        ./work/nmh-1.5/uip/spost.c

Conclusion: I will ignore/ forget Followup-To & stick to Reply-To.


Werner wrote:

> To: Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com>
> Cc: "Julian H. Stacey" <j...@berklix.com>, gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> 
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:27, pe...@digitalbrains.com said:
> 
> > Whether you like the headers Bernstein created or not, it would seem Werner
> > didn't want to be on the recipient list, which is why I brought it up
> 
> The thing is that I put most mailing lists I am subscribed to on Gnu's
> message-subscribed-addresses list.  This list takes care of maintaining
> a MFT header.  Gnus will do that only if it can be sure that everyone
> agrees to this.  Thus in most cases you will see an explicit CC anyway.
> MFT works only for those folks with full support of MFT and if they
> maintain their list of subscribed addresses well.  Given that the bad
> habit of sending text+html alternative mails seems to be impossible to
> expunge [1];

Yup, horrible (as also is quoted printable, usually not needed) 

>  I consider missing MFT handling a micro annoyance.
> 
> I any case, I consider it a good idea to explicitly add a To: header to
> notify the addressee that this particular mail gains his attention.

Yup
> 
> BTW, exmh is a nice MUA I used a long time ago and only stopped using it
> because back then a remote X connection was not really usable (and I
> didn't want to use plain mh).

Not sure what remote problems you had, but:
Even localy EXMH reply key does not work right unless one starts
from ttys with xdm & uses xauth. Starting with the ttys login xhost
+ route fails.

A person at my site regularly uses an EXMH on a slow X display
started from xdm, with AMD + NFS ~/mail/ on a faster server, works fine.

Yesterday I was just testing a new EXMH, both with DISPLAY= local laptop screen,
& my tower display, but in both cases exmh running on laptop,
with NFS+AMDsupporting ~/mail , with 493 sub dirs (`find . -type d | wc -l`)
        It took minutes to start. Unusable really, I need to solve that.

I assume one could use ssh to support a tunnel for X for EXMH, but
not tried that as I dont need it.

> Shalom-Salam,
> 
>    Werner
> 
> [1] If you often send mails to Outlook users, you may want to use the
>     X-message-flag header to tell them about this problem.

I run lists with 100s of people, mostly clueless MS users, running
every MUA one can dream of. Less of a dream than a nightmare.

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com
 Reply below not above, like a play script.  Indent old text with "> ".
 Send plain text.  No quoted-printable, HTML, base64, multipart/alternative.

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Reply via email to