On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:32:44 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/01 3:21 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Note: This does expose an abuse vector: >> >> I don't like Bubba. >> >> I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba. > Aka the "set your followup to /dev/null" on usenet hack. > I'm of the opinion, and I don't expect to be in the majority, that > "reply-to" should not transport through a mail list. Either the > mail list replaces it with a list-centric one, or it deletes it. There are three base reasons people set Reply-To: 1) They're rewriting their From: header. 2) They're attempting to move a thread to another forum. 3) They're attempting to kill CC'ed posts to themselves by setting Reply-To to the list they're posting to. I've already addressed the (fourth) abuse vector. Taking the three in order: #1 is not fundamentally affected by the change except that they now starg getting CC's. For reasons not dissimilar to Chuq's I don't have much sympathy for this. #2 Will work, partially. With reply-to replacement replies would never see the other forum. With reply-to extension they'll see both the other forum and the list list. #3 Won't change at all as they'll get dupe collapsed > The real answer are aliases attached to a subscripiton) Agreed. Different problem tho. > My argument is that when I send mail to the list, the list > processes it and then sends out a new message that my message is > the basis of it. The debate then is how much influence a poster should have over the disposition of such a message. Specifically, given that a poster to a non-reply-to list can entirely control the disposition via reply-to, how should those abilities be curtailed for a reply-to list? By doing reply-to extension we're changing practice as follows: -- Posters can _add_ to a posts disposition list via Reply-To. This is different from non-reply-to lists where posters can entirely replace and define disposition via reply-to. -- Posters can attempt to move threads to a different forum. Essentially they can create crossposted threads via reply-to. Unlike non-reply-to setting lists they can't make a thread leave a list, they can only add another disposition. Unlike reply-to replacement, you _CAN_ now have a crossposted thread. -- Under reply-to extension the original poster who sets reply-to has the ability to expose an additional address to all subsequent thread posts. This can be abused, but can also be a Very Good Thing as it allows, for instance, a non-list-member to track and aprticipate in a specific thread. Under reply-to replacement you'd have to be a member of the list to follow the thread (thus all the requests of, "Please CC me I'm not on the list"). > At that point, the original reply-to is no longer valid, it's what > the list software says should happen that matters. As the > bubba-hack shows, to NOT do this opens up lists to abuse in > not-necessarily-obvious ways, and worse, you leave things in > ambiguous states, depending on factors most users don't > understand. Lists act differently based on whether it reply-to > coerces and whether the original poster coerces reply-to... This centers on the old debate: Is a list message an entirely new message or is it a continuation/version of the message which was sent to the list? I tend to the latter version. Yes, the Bubba hack extends an abuse which exists for non reply-to munging lists to reply-to munging lists. > ... and you have the issue of which coerced reply-to 'wins'. Given RFC conformant MUAs this isn't a problem -- they all win. Here it appears that Pine might not be conformant. MH and NMH are just fine. JRA is testing out Mutt. I assume someone with access to Outlook will check that (I don't have access). > How is the typical user to understand how this all works together, > and why when they reply to a list, this happens, except when it's > fred's message? The arbitrary user is not affected. He replies exactly as per normal and, as far as his perception is concerned, it Just Works. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers