Re: Responses to the list (oops)
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:37:53 -0500 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must be a bug. In Sylpheed 2.0.1-1 (GTK+ version 2.6.10), Message-Reply to-Mailing list does what it's supposed to do: put only debian-user@lists.debian.org in To:, and nothing in Cc:. I figured as much, I guess it's time to familiarize myself with the bug reporting process. It doesn't happen that often so I never looked into until the last time it happened and not really knowing how all these headers are used having the the Reply-To: field with the posters address is the only thing that stands out to me in the following headers from the post where reply to mailing list doesn't work as expected. Later, Seeker Received: from murphy.debian.org ([146.82.138.6]) by rwcrmxc14.comcast.net (rwcrmxc14) with ESMTP id 20050918101535r1400ksgise; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:15:35 + X-Originating-IP: [146.82.138.6] Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 0450B2E551; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:15:07 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.201]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C233F2DE92 for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:15:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l37so67462nfc for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:15:05 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=O+LtxSJQ+fVu6dU5Osu3JI+YvOeCdDAv2K9l2nlqdkysG/LAi//2ge2VMHXa5EVUo+vKSm5QN3RTOZU9SnOLqVXGDC1lvF24Nu8BXwK70AZn5634ybCLj1EDMsvkGRgbefHh5AH9mQlakksfwmOWYK+9nZb3QhgZMWStq0EmS50= Received: by 10.48.3.12 with SMTP id 12mr32653nfc; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.157.18 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:15:05 +0100 From: Pooly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: playing midi with timidity In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Rc-Virus: 2005-08-24_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-09-11_01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on murphy.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=4.0 tests=AWL,LDOSUBSCRIBER,RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org archive/latest/410080 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: debian-user.lists.debian.org List-Post: mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:15:07 -0500 (CDT) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Seth Goodman wrote: Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very useful, unless if you're interested in email history. Which is something you need to know when blatently getting 822 and 2822 backwards when it comes to reply-to. As I pointed out in a previous post, Reply-To: is an optional header that is set by the _sender_ of the message. Incorrect. Have you even read RFC2822? I decided to refresh my memory and reread it and it took me all of 30s to debunk this notion. - 3.6.2. Originator fields The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field. - Not the sender of the message, or ORIGINATOR of the message. Since the message isn't the originator it doesn't get to touch those. The exception, as noted, is sender. Now let's look specifically at reply-to. - The originator fields also provide the information required when replying to a message. When the Reply-To: field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. In the absence of the Reply-To: field, replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the From: field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the reply. - The author. No mention of mailing list munging. It is where the AUTHOR wants the mail to go. Now let's hop to sender... - The Sender: field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message. For example, if a secretary were to send a message for another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the Sender: field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in the From: field. If the originator of the message can be indicated by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the Sender: field SHOULD NOT be used. Otherwise, both fields SHOULD appear. - This states that the agent that actually sent the message sets the sender field. If the sender and the from field would be the same sender should not be used. If the sender is different than the originator then sender should be set. Note that no other originator field gets that provision. None. Not From. Not Reply-to. Only Sender. In fact as noted Reply-To is given protection by the explicit mention of author, not sending agent, and From is given futher protection with the stronger must not language, From must not be set to any mailbox the author does not control. This is reinfoced further in the document where the Resent-* headers are defined... - 3.6.6. Resent fields Resent fields SHOULD be added to any message that is reintroduced by a user into the transport system. A separate set of resent fields SHOULD be added each time this is done. All of the resent fields corresponding to a particular resending of the message SHOULD be together. Each new set of resent fields is prepended to the message; that is, the most recent set of resent fields appear earlier in the message. No other fields in the message are changed when resent fields are added. - Clear language there. No other fields in the message are changed when resent fields are added. So follow the trail. Sender should not be set if sender/from would be the same. In the case of a mailing list this is not the case so sender is allowed to be touched. Reply-to is specifically delecated to the author of the message, not the resending agent. From is stricty prohibited. Furthermore when reintroducing the message into the transport system (IE, Mailing list!) resent- headers should be set and no other fields are changed. In short, Seth, there is no wording in RFC2822 which even remotely suggestions that mailing lists can touch reply-to. None. At all. Want to know why? Well, that's where the history lesson comes in. RFC822 *DID* mention it, quite explicitly. - 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
RE: Responses to the list (oops)
From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:50 AM Seth Goodman wrote: Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very useful, unless if you're interested in email history. Which is something you need to know when blatently getting 822 and 2822 backwards when it comes to reply-to. I am well aware of the differences between the two standards. You would do well to read them both carefully as well as RFC1123. As I pointed out in a previous post, Reply-To: is an optional header that is set by the _sender_ of the message. Incorrect. Have you even read RFC2822? I decided to refresh my memory and reread it and it took me all of 30s to debunk this notion. I've spent more hours studying that and related standards than I care to think about. Your 30 second peek has produced laughable results and the insults alone are reason to kill-file your posts. However, others on the list may be interested as why your conclusions are incorrect. - 3.6.2. Originator fields The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field. - Not the sender of the message, or ORIGINATOR of the message. The From:, Sender: and Reply-To: have historically been called originator fields. You have chosen to strictly interpret that term, out of context, as the original author. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that at all. When an original author sends a message to a recipient, the author and originator happen to be the same, but there are a number of other cases where the author and originator are different. Among these are mailing lists, end user resending and submission on behalf of another party. In RFC2821/2822, as well as 1123, originator means the party submitting a message for transmission through an originating gateway MTA to a destination gateway MTA for delivery to one or more mailboxes. A mailing list operates according to a redistribution model which is distinct from list exploding, alias forwarding, or end user encapsulation forwarding. It is related to, but distinct from, end user resending. Here is the relevant citation from RFC2821: |3.10.2 List | | A mailing list may be said to operate by redistribution rather than | by forwarding. To expand a list, the recipient mailer replaces the | pseudo-mailbox address in the envelope with all of the expanded | addresses. The return address in the envelope is changed so that all | error messages generated by the final deliveries will be returned to | a list administrator, not to the message originator, who generally | has no control over the contents of the list and will typically find | error messages annoying. Redistribution means that the list MX first accepts a message, which is then considered to have achieved final delivery. The life of that message, as far as SMTP is concerned, is now _over_. The list then creates a _new_ message, which it _reinjects_ into the message stream to a new list of recipients. As far as SMTP is concerned, this is a completely new message and the list is the originator. This has nothing to do with authorship, it has to do with message submission into a transport environment. In the redistribution case, the only prohibition for 2822 headers is that the list MUST NOT change the From: header. The Reply-To: header is optional in the first place, and as the new originator, the list is free to do what it wants with it. To show that the list is resending the message, rather than just forwarding it, most lists set the Sender: header to the list address. Thus, there are two headers, MAIL FROM: in the envelope and Sender: in the body where the list explicitly claims to be originator. Since the message isn't the originator it doesn't get to touch those. See the above. You don't seem to understand the concept of message origination. The exception, as noted, is sender. No, it's part and parcel of the whole framework, not an exception. This is just one of the cases where author and originator are not the same. When a party submits a message for transmission on behalf of another party, the original author is listed in From: and the party submitting the message for transmission MUST list their address in Sender:. Another use of Sender: is if there are more than one original authors listed in From:, in which case Sender: is also REQUIRED, since only one individual or system submits a given message. Again, note that the message originator is the party listed in Sender:, not the original author listed in From:. The Date:, Message-ID: and first Received: header all correspond to the submission of the message, not when it was authored. As far as the RFC's are concerned, the message could have been authored by someone last year in handwritten form and it has no bearing on the current message submission, _except_ that the original author's identity
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Seth Goodman wrote: I am well aware of the differences between the two standards. You would do well to read them both carefully as well as RFC1123. Apparently not since you got them backwards and couldn't even see the problems in your own argument. In the redistribution case, the only prohibition for 2822 headers is that the list MUST NOT change the From: header. The Reply-To: header is optional in the first place, and as the new originator, the list is free to do what it wants with it. Incorrect. Go reread my message again. When you think the above, reread my message AGAIN until it gets through your head. RFC 2822 prohibits changing of reply-to. It is reinforced from several casses. RFC2821 has no bearing. To show that the list is resending the message, rather than just forwarding it, most lists set the Sender: header to the list address. Thus, there are two headers, MAIL FROM: in the envelope and Sender: in the body where the list explicitly claims to be originator. And the addition of the resent-* headers and list headers (RFC2369?). Here's the relevant headers from your submission to the list: List-Id: debian-user.lists.debian.org List-Post: mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:17:15 -0500 (CDT) See the above. You don't seem to understand the concept of message origination. I understand it quite well. Reread my message again. Your mistake is thinking my 30 second peek was the totality of my experience with these RFCs. I've been debating this very issue for years. The 30 second peek was a REFRESHER. So reread the message again. Print it out and hang it on your wall until it penetrates your brain. That is the only the case for transit between the original author and the destination. Once the mailing list MX accepts the message, it is deemed to have achieved final delivery and that message's life is over. Incorrect. Read the message again. Reinjecting does not end the message's life. Hell, the Message-ID doesn't change. It defines what headers can and cannot touch! The mailing list creates multiple new messages which it reinjects into the transport environment with new recipients. The list is the originator of each of these messages. Since these are new messages, the mailing list is free to do what it wants with everything except the From: header. And yet you're the only person who has EVER said that about RFC2822 which was written to provent just that interpretation. Care to explain? You are misunderstanding what the standard is about. The party who submits the message fills in the originator fields. Quite aware of that. What you're misunderstanding is thinking reply-to can be touched when it is clear it should not. Yes, for a completely different case. This is end user resending, not mailing list redistribution. They may appear similar, but they are distinct cases. And yet the mailing list here is doing just that. So follow the trail. Sender should not be set if sender/from would be the same. In the case of a mailing list this is not the case so sender is allowed to be touched. Reply-to is specifically delecated to the author of the message, not the resending agent. That is your opinion only. You are grossly oversimplifying the situation. No, it is fact. Reread the message again, reread the spec and drop your bias. In short, Seth, there is no wording in RFC2822 which even remotely suggestions that mailing lists can touch reply-to. None. More importantly, there is nothing that says they can't. Reread my message again. You're up to about 10 rereads. It is clear as day. Most mailing lists _do_ change Reply-To:, so your insistence on the one true interpretation is quite irrelevant. You can't change that and neither can I. Get a life. They do so incorrectly against spec. Hate to break it to you but if you're coming to this list looking for support in favor of ignoring open standards in lieu of closed, propietary, de facto, every changing standards you're in for quite a shock. Argue that the RFC is wrong. Argue that the RFC should be changed. That's all fine and good as long as you get your facts straight. But argue to ignore interoperability standards at your own peril. At all. Want to know why? Well, that's where the history lesson comes in. Oh wonderful, you are going to give me a history lesson? Where do I get off this bus. You signed up when you got the RFCs backwards in them (dis)allowing reply-to munging. RFC822 *DID* mention it, quite explicitly. irrelevant citation snipped IE, whoops, I didn't see that and it is a pesky fact which gets in the way of my dogma. Published in 1982 before mailing lists, as we know them today, were even conceived of.
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Albert wrote: Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world. That's because we do it the right way. As of RFC2822 reply-to munging is clearly wrong while in 822 there was a clear indication it was allowed. Furthermore several other list headers are included for email clients to munch on. Most notably List-Post: The problem is with the client, not the list. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Ron Johnson wrote: On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html This is fine. Notice how reply to the list, but don't CC me isn't part of what reasonable mailers are expected to do: Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make reply back to the list easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate reply commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. Exactly. Pst, Roon, CCing the OP without it expressedly requested is against list policy. Furthermore it is wasteful. Reasonable clients should have a reply-to-list. Keep up man! -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Angelo Bertolli wrote: 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? Yes. This is a problem with Thunderbird as there is no list reply. One of the few problems with an otherwise excellent client. BTW, it is easier than you describe. Reply-to-all, click on the notecard next to the individual's email, delete, change the CC dropdown next to the Debian list address from CC to TO. Done. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Mike McCarty wrote: Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly. Threading is based on the References header which is a News header. In-reply-to is insufficient for complete threading when one hop is missing. :P -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Seth Goodman wrote: Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to reply to the list (the actual sender of the message you received) rather than the original poster (a private reply to a public post, not generally appropriate). It is perfectly within the purview of the list to alter the Reply-To: header so that the most commonly deployed MUA's will perform the preferred action when the recipient hits reply. Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *removed* that reference on reply-tos just because of the long-standing debate over reply-to munging. The real question is why List-Post was written in such a way as so that people could debate it's usefulness as an inidicator of where to send replies (it has happened, believe me) and why the head-honchos up on high who debate such standards have gone on record as saying that a list-reply is not needed. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700 Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *removed* that reference on reply-tos just because of the long-standing debate over reply-to munging. The real question is why List-Post was written in such a way as so that people could debate it's usefulness as an inidicator of where to send replies (it has happened, believe me) and why the head-honchos up on high who debate such standards have gone on record as saying that a list-reply is not needed. To add to the insanity (at least with sylpheed-claws-gtk2) it seems if the Reply To: field contains the posters email address then no matter what you choose (reply, reply to all, reply to mailing list) only the posters email address is supplied, if you want to send a reply to the list you have to add the list address and if you don't want the reply to go to the posters email address you have to remove it. DOH! Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:39:40 -0700 Seeker5528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700 Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] To add to the insanity (at least with sylpheed-claws-gtk2) it seems if the Reply To: field contains the posters email address then no matter what you choose (reply, reply to all, reply to mailing list) only the posters email address is supplied, if you want to send a reply to the list you have to add the list address and if you don't want the reply to go to the posters email address you have to remove it. DOH! Must be a bug. In Sylpheed 2.0.1-1 (GTK+ version 2.6.10), Message-Reply to-Mailing list does what it's supposed to do: put only debian-user@lists.debian.org in To:, and nothing in Cc:. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Responses to the list (oops)
From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:41 PM Seth Goodman wrote: Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to reply to the list (the actual sender of the message you received) rather than the original poster (a private reply to a public post, not generally appropriate). It is perfectly within the purview of the list to alter the Reply-To: header so that the most commonly deployed MUA's will perform the preferred action when the recipient hits reply. Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *removed* that reference on reply-tos just because of the long-standing debate over reply-to munging. Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very useful, unless if you're interested in email history. As I pointed out in a previous post, Reply-To: is an optional header that is set by the _sender_ of the message. When you receive a message that was redistributed by a mailing list, the _list_ is the current sender. That is why the list MUST replace the original return-path with theirs. The logic behind this is that the poster has no interest in receiving DSN's resulting from the subsequent redistribution of their message. That is for the list to keep track of. Similarly, being a mailing list and not a private conversation, it is both inappropriate and cumbersome for the original poster to answer a public post with a private reply. The purpose for a public mailing list is to have a public conversation, with one answer hopefully satisfying many readers with the same question. Taking into account how the vast majority of deployed MUA's operate, it is perfectly reasonable, and not in conflict with the RFC's, for a mailing list to change Reply-To: in order to have the reply button do the desired action in the majority of cases. Now, you can insist that the majority of the mailing lists have it dead wrong, as do the majority of deployed MUA's around the internet. If that's your position, go ahead, you're arguing with a de facto standard that is incredibly widely deployed. Your opinion, as well as mine and that of RFC2822 are quite irrelevant in this respect. There are millions of deployed MUA's and tens of thousands of mailing lists that already operate in a particular way. In fact, most users of those systems _like_ the way they operate. The chances of changing all that infrastructure, that users actually like, is between slim and none. After all that work, the payoff would be what? Only that mailing lists and MUA's would operate the way _you_ think they should. Nothing practical will have been gained. That is commonly know as a waste. Believe me, we've got _much_ bigger fish to fry in terms of MUA's and email practices, and this one doesn't make it to the short list. As an example of another de facto standard, consider the Sendmail interface. It is not great by today's standards, but people got very used to it when it was the only game in town. Looking at Exim, the default MTA for Debian, there are a large number of options that they went out of their way to provide so that people used to the Sendmail interface could easily adopt Exim. They were rewarded for this foresight by rapidly garnering a reasonable share of MTA deployments. They could have insisted that conforming to an outdated interface was a waste of effort and technically questionable. Had they taken that approach, they might have the satisfaction of having it their way but it probably wouldn't be the Debian default MTA. It's perfectly reasonable to argue technical merit in technical committees and in engineering departments, but when it comes to de facto standards, you can either recognize them or become a footnote in technical development. The real question is why List-Post was written in such a way as so that people could debate it's usefulness as an inidicator of where to send replies (it has happened, believe me) and why the head-honchos up on high who debate such standards have gone on record as saying that a list-reply is not needed. The answer is simple, it _isn't_ needed for any practical purpose. There is already a reply header that the list is allowed to use, and in fact most lists _do_ use. There is no purpose for an additional header that the great majority of deployed MUA's don't use anyway. Anyone who proposes a solution to an email problem that requires the majority of the world's MUA's and mailing lists to change is running straight into a brick wall without a helmet. The people who write institutional standards are more aware than most of the tenacity of de facto standards and they
Responses to the list (oops)
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:] Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list, and maybe a few others that got picked up along the way. I thought this was done on purpose so as not to munge email headers with mailman, but... now I've seen people say: 1) CC me because I'm not on the list (ok done - hit reply-all) 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? It seems to me if this is the behavior desired, then the mail headers should be munged in mailman like so many others lists do. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Angelo Bertolli wrote: [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:] Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list, and maybe a few others that got picked up along the way. I thought this was done on purpose so as not to munge email headers with mailman, but... now I've seen people say: 1) CC me because I'm not on the list (ok done - hit reply-all) 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? It seems to me if this is the behavior desired, then the mail headers should be munged in mailman like so many others lists do. Same thins is happening to me. I'll go boot one of my other distros and see what the difference is. This isn't normal. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Using my browser (online e-mail), when I click on Reply All, I get both the list and the original sender in the To: line. Is that unusual, compared to Thunderbird? (I know the same thing happens in Outlook.) I simply delete the extra addressee and send. I'm not flaming, I'm just wanting to know if the issue is different than I percieve. (And, I will want to run Thunderbird on the laptop when I get it finished, and need to know any quirks) Fritz - Original Message - From: Antony Gelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Responses to the list (oops) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:18 +0100 Angelo Bertolli wrote: [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:] Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list, and maybe a few others that got picked up along the way. I thought this was done on purpose so as not to munge email headers with mailman, but... now I've seen people say: 1) CC me because I'm not on the list (ok done - hit reply-all) 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? It seems to me if this is the behavior desired, then the mail headers should be munged in mailman like so many others lists do. Please read the archives. This has been discussed many times. As far as Thunderbird goes, I believe there is an outstanding bug to provide reply-to-list functionality. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Angelo Bertolli wrote: [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:] Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list, and maybe a few others that got picked up along the way. I thought this was done on purpose so as not to munge email headers with mailman, but... now I've seen people say: 1) CC me because I'm not on the list (ok done - hit reply-all) 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? It seems to me if this is the behavior desired, then the mail headers should be munged in mailman like so many others lists do. Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote: Angelo Bertolli wrote: [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:] Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list, and maybe a few others that got picked up along the way. I thought this was done on purpose so as not to munge email headers with mailman, but... now I've seen people say: 1) CC me because I'm not on the list (ok done - hit reply-all) 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? It seems to me if this is the behavior desired, then the mail headers should be munged in mailman like so many others lists do. Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Temporarily not of Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Large enterprises don't care about crusades. They want people to work more efficiently. Louis Nauges http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5198121.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Ron Johnson wrote: On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote: snip Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Yes, this ancient piece of Holy Writ was quoted to me years ago. Still, Debian does this different than the rest of the world. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Ron Johnson wrote: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html This is fine. Notice how reply to the list, but don't CC me isn't part of what reasonable mailers are expected to do: Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make reply back to the list easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate reply commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html This is fine. Notice how reply to the list, but don't CC me isn't part of what reasonable mailers are expected to do: Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make reply back to the list easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate reply commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. Exactly. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Temporarily not of Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument. Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Good afternoon! So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as the To: line, removing all others, etc? I use reply all and then cut out everyone's name leaving only the list address. So far, I haven't annoyed anyone. Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Responses to the list (oops)
From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:50 PM ... http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html This is written from the perspective of Elm being the reference for all MUA's. Though I used Elm twenty years ago as my primary MUA, the MUA's in widest use today do _not_ have reply-to-list functionality and use the Reply-to: header to direct the reply to the proper address. This fellow's citations are as outdated as his MUA. RFC822 was published in 1982 and RFC1123 updated it in 1989. So much has changed since those standards were published that most people involved in email consider RFC2821/2822, published in 2001, to be far more relevant, even though those are still officially classified as proposed standards (the IETF sometimes moves at the speed of a glacier). Looking at RFC2822, section 3.6.2: 3.6.2. Originator fields ... The originator fields also provide the information required when replying to a message. When the Reply-To: field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. In the absence of the Reply-To: field, replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the From: field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the reply. Now, RFC2821 clearly defines mailing lists as operating on a redistribution model, where the list is considered the new sender. The list MUST change the return-path (argument of the MAIL TO: command) to the list owner (though common practice uses a VERP address instead) and the original From: header MUST NOT be altered so as to retain the original author. Most mailing lists, though not all, choose to set the Sender: header to the list owner to show that the mail did not come directly from the original author, but was a bulk redistribution (re-injected into the internet mail stream) by the list on the author's behalf. While the RFC's don't require this, other sections in RFC2822 give the basis for this practice. Though the Resent-From: header might have been a better choice, most sites chose Sender: instead. Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to reply to the list (the actual sender of the message you received) rather than the original poster (a private reply to a public post, not generally appropriate). It is perfectly within the purview of the list to alter the Reply-To: header so that the most commonly deployed MUA's will perform the preferred action when the recipient hits reply. In short, you need a good reason _not_ to do something the same way as the rest of the world when it comes to email. The site referred to above does not make a compelling case given today's normal practices. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
That sounds like a problem with you mailer's threading.
Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
newsgroups were invented for. These days mailing lists are used for exactly
what newsgroups were originally used for. This is supposed to be to reduce
spam, but in reality just as much spam comes to mailing lists as come to
newsgroups.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Joe Smith wrote:
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
That sounds like a problem with you mailer's threading.
Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
newsgroups were invented for. These days mailing lists are used for
exactly what newsgroups were originally used for. This is supposed to be
to reduce spam, but in reality just as much spam comes to mailing lists
as come to newsgroups.
All too true.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Joe Smith writes: Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what newsgroups were invented for. No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of thumb on how large a mailing-list should get before it was replaced by a newsgroup. This is supposed to be to reduce spam, but in reality just as much spam comes to mailing lists as come to newsgroups. I see very little spam on the newsgroups I read. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Smith writes: Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what newsgroups were invented for. No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of thumb on how large a mailing-list should get before it was replaced by a newsgroup. Based on the history of unix being slowly posted to groklaw, Usenet long predates modern email. In fact AFAICT e-mail was a spinoff of usenet. (although usenet of long ago was quite different than it is today. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Mike said: Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly. The message ID should not change based on whom the message is sent AFAICT, so who is in the reply feild does not really matter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
