Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 30 Jun 2000: > > Maybe it's time to write a new one. > > According to DJB, the IETF is not going to accept > Mail-Followup-To, which, he claims, is the reason why he > doesn't write any more drafts. Hmm, that's DJB... Wonder what the real story is, why wouldn't IETF accept MFT? It makes *sense*. Do you have any pointers to archives or something where this has been discussed? Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / I tried to get a life once, but they were out of stock.
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
On 2000-06-30 01:10:22 -0400, Hugo Haas wrote: > It makes sense. Now I'm convinced that Mail-Followup-To > is useful. I'll still be frustrated, but I am > convinced. :-) > I found an Internet Draft about it, but it expired 2 > years ago: > http://qmail.edge.ne.jp/mta/ietf/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt > Maybe it's time to write a new one. According to DJB, the IETF is not going to accept Mail-Followup-To, which, he claims, is the reason why he doesn't write any more drafts.
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > This is *one* example where trying to set up Reply-To properly would > fail, as: > 1) I'm required to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the From address, or > I can't post to the list without approval > 2) I still want to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] as my public address for > replies that are sent privately to me > 3) I want to indicate that I'm subscribed to mutt-users, so don't > need private copies on list discussion It makes sense. Now I'm convinced that Mail-Followup-To is useful. I'll still be frustrated, but I am convinced. :-) I found an Internet Draft about it, but it expired 2 years ago: http://qmail.edge.ne.jp/mta/ietf/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Maybe it's time to write a new one. -- Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://larve.net/people/hugo/ If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing. -- Homer J. Simpson
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 07:16:33AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > > And what's the proper way of doing multiple addresses? > One, single Reply-To or multiple headers? RFC822 update specifies at most one Reply-To. "If the from field contains more than one mailbox specification in the mailbox-list, then the sender field, containing the field name "Sender" and a single mailbox specification, MUST appear in the message. In either case, an optional reply-to field may also be included, which contains the field name "Reply-To" and a comma-separated list of one or more addresses." Regards, -rex
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
Stan Ryckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 29 Jun 2000: > It's perfectly fine, and has been since at least RFC-822 (1982). > Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't broken MUAs out there... And what's the proper way of doing multiple addresses? One, single Reply-To or multiple headers? In any case it looks like your mailer picked the entire header contents and added "@ma.ultranet.com" after it, for some reason. Proof enough that mailers do weird things with Reply-To headers. > ps - your post said Reply-To you, but MFT the list and Hugo. > What should that combination mean, I wonder? It means that private replies should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], mail followups (list replies) should go to the list and Hugo. This is *one* example where trying to set up Reply-To properly would fail, as: 1) I'm required to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the From address, or I can't post to the list without approval 2) I still want to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] as my public address for replies that are sent privately to me 3) I want to indicate that I'm subscribed to mutt-users, so don't need private copies on list discussion Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
At 11:55 PM 6/29/00 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: [...] >I'm also not aware of whether there is any specified way to have >Reply-To set to more than one address. You can either have multiple >Reply-To headers, one address per header, or you can have multiple >addresses in one header. I think that in either case, the behaviour >of MUAs is unspecified, so you may and will get random results. Does >anyone know more about this? It's perfectly fine, and has been since at least RFC-822 (1982). Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't broken MUAs out there... Cheers, Stan ps - your post said Reply-To you, but MFT the list and Hugo. What should that combination mean, I wonder?
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 27 Jun 2000: > Hi. Hello! > I read a lot about Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To recently (including in > the mutt-users archive) and my conclusion is that: > - Mail-Followup-To is not a standard and is supported by very few MUA's. Well, it's not a standard in the way that it would have been defined in a RFC. It's also not a standed in the way that there are a lot of popular MUAs which support it (ie. "industry standard" sort of). It *is* a standard in a way that there exists specific documentation on the use of it with definitions. (http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html) The only MUA I know of which supports MFT is Mutt. Unfortunately. This means that users of other MUAs should campaign for adding such a feature to their clients, because it is unlikely to get added otherwise. :-( Except maybe if it was included in some RFC...? qmail (a MTA) does support MFT passively -- it can add the header to outgoing emails, but this only works for messages added locally with qmail-inject, and it doesn't mean that whatever MUA is used on such system will then respond to MFTs. > - Reply-To should be able to do the right thing, even if some > implementations are forcing people to use this field. This is not quite true. Reply-To doesn't specify whether a message reply is "discussion group followup" or a "private reply" -- there is a distintion between the two, and this distinction is what causes the problems with Reply-To. I'm also not aware of whether there is any specified way to have Reply-To set to more than one address. You can either have multiple Reply-To headers, one address per header, or you can have multiple addresses in one header. I think that in either case, the behaviour of MUAs is unspecified, so you may and will get random results. Does anyone know more about this? > Of course, mailing-lists adding a Reply-To header would break that, but > anyway there is no perfect solution. There is a perfect solution, which is MFT, it's just that the other MUAs don't support it. :-) Get them to support it, and the problem goes away. If they don't start to support it, the problems inherent in playing with Reply-To will remain. It's that simple. Most of the (discussion) mailing lists I'm on go through the "should Reply-To be set to the list or sender?" talk at least once, some go through it every now and then. This is proof enough that Reply-To isn't the right solution to mailing list issues, there's always some problems if you try to make it be the list-discussion indication method. Modern MUAs, except for Mutt (that I know of) simple do not deal with mailing lists intelligently, they are only intended for private email use. Just like the original mail specifics. I find it rather curious that nobody (well, the MUA authors and the users of those MUAs) actually perceives this as a serious problem... Yes, at the moment it doesn't look like MFT is widely supported. However, IMHO it's *clearly* the best solution to the problem. Just because it might be difficult to get the right solution adopted because of legacy behaviour, that doesn't mean we shouldn't *try* -- if we don't try, then some things will *never* get fixed, will they? Oh well, ranting about this on mutt-users is pretty much preaching to the choir, since Mutt already does support MFT. It's the *other* MUAs we should be concerned about, and the developers/users of those don't read mutt-users. To conclude, yes you shouldn't expect MFT to work yet except on lists where the majority of people use Mutt as the MUA. That doesn't mean that you should abandon it though! Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 29 Jun 2000: > I don't think that it's possible to do this with send-hooks (or if it > is, I'd be very interested to see how to make send-hook interact with > the From, To, Cc and the value of lists and subscribe), so it would > require some new code. You can't have it done automagically, like MFT is done now. You can match against the current From header with ~f, you can match against sending it to a subscribed (?) mailing list with ~l, but you can't construct similar sets of addresses as MFT generation does with .muttrc commands alone. So yes, it would require some new code. Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / Warning: The electrons relaying this email travel at extremely high speed.
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
[ Sorry, there is no In-Reply-To field because I forgot to set the correct headers in my original message, and I couldn't extract the message-id from the archive... ] On 2000-06-27, fman wrote: > try my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My suggestion wasn't clear enough. Here's what I was proposing: Suppose that I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and that I am not subscribed to this list. I would like replies to go to the list and myself. It is currently possible to have Mutt put the following header automatically: Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> However, this is not standard and doesn't work very well in practice. So I was suggesting to add an option to do the same using Reply-To instead of Mail-Followup-To such as: Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> since it seems legitimate to me to use Reply-To in such a case (which I did this time). I don't think that it's possible to do this with send-hooks (or if it is, I'd be very interested to see how to make send-hook interact with the From, To, Cc and the value of lists and subscribe), so it would require some new code. I hope this is clearer now. -- Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://larve.net/people/hugo/ Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen. -- Homer J. Simpson
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
On 2000-06-27 20:40:16 -0700, fman wrote: > try my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > mQGiBDlYQxYRBACHDSw/JNcmvvZeQQMKq954FHbiyJHyNZ+clwwdFPzIOsxiq3AW > r5T1Xk2mPYqF8cQEqUQME8jHGaBUf2ty+zn+C/2In80LzZ3KslY839wRWS0ICbbI > rgdEPhBpWL75k+tInP4A5v3zluN4nt6a1/z1GMJXkG9sV1zDg+MY3YMDowCgi++u [snip] Don't you think this is a bit exaggerated? signatures (.signatures, to be more precise, not cryptographic signatures) are generally supposed to be 4 lines long, not 40 (or something). For distributing your PGP public key, please use the key servers or your web page.
Re: Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
> > Any comments? > > -- try my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org mQGiBDlYQxYRBACHDSw/JNcmvvZeQQMKq954FHbiyJHyNZ+clwwdFPzIOsxiq3AW r5T1Xk2mPYqF8cQEqUQME8jHGaBUf2ty+zn+C/2In80LzZ3KslY839wRWS0ICbbI rgdEPhBpWL75k+tInP4A5v3zluN4nt6a1/z1GMJXkG9sV1zDg+MY3YMDowCgi++u acxq/0LuNjs6wSTodfXB2CcD/3KDUuqujB6LLwCgXSB+9125UYAQSYklG11hyQ2r 9buRUBXWoMYhxTUEa6PqGzLZOkIVKbYFfufZZVg08HIpOKEcUclM6H9eRHenGBvH UM2f8hpoDg//MfF23lJn805rYa8sLWw6gyJaf62Feln2saUNLOg91ZIi2B7wqDfd jivNA/4x5xWHp5zVS7AoiM9z+x05x8MFAYYOgusm3LxwJ+rbdJdpjBIkCH//gVM1 BM8xP+pYZi6ZKROP8flwnMw7thO5rMHiXNKUS12O3/TRFbPW5XkIMqm5acpmnfnz P8B3Bvj2Mk79ZV/pgJP9uSxmCcqWSM9qqEzUBukzRobSFTkdEbQsSnVhbiBBLiBV cmliZSAoRT1tKmNeMikgPHVyaWJlQGZsYXNoY29tLm5ldD6IWwQTEQIAGwUCOVhD FgUJAeEzgAMLCgMDFQMCAxYCAQIXgAAKCRDOiYR3stUzVQqUAJ9RuqKhG/pOUK6g 4ZuSJDPcWQ0O6gCfSwugDM1yJ4nM48VyPKj4Lb38fGy5Ag0EOVhDvRAIAPZnG934 YPEtm8jktQRNfvTOnKrxnrEkSXIrC5XwwYVdX9gbFp9+GIEKhsZw4YkxzybOj0rY MtgrhlE8wXA7r0FsjcWn9ic0PVa5w5I0QqCEJ3MdbG+kmtABbfMtyEShcxvSyXcH nC+2ZCrCb23SORQMPtytoLIesMeXbpNGjUTnFHw5c/zuDqj4ZJIUK4x9kg7iJB7E e0xwUpJbR08DP8iN6m0VQD9VZ4UgeISuXG6w5JcHusraKuNi0ST9Ck2QD8tOtRoG oAN3l5cb5+VEVEcHGdQHUJT0R7SUVkV8YHMvlc22Ykg4Ftf1F8mb/mN/04ABZQ3w 7fjwrtyYn4oN3P8ABAsIAMthC0WV28BMw7gKqHDCMuuaAk4JmS14yT3h6Gpilrha XhRRLc0t5ZfZmAoJ+vA8ZrXhJykBJQSg6XPsZ7XVOm9grFq2viPUYV6fb4dQnh6t 6S07kpW1x2JIWTkxA/i4As+FDLzBtWu9DXds7EtBPzd41hSwe5g7LOZGV5QYhdov X5tqZuT0Sxntsuh4U1DxCjvVujuJ9L4fDvNqKrGRDqgzaOuv47zUGz35zrLH1quT FjSlojuElepbfWcxCtQr/VL6vHX1ggE/3SXt5cApYNzveRq98bicLKJMuI1k9/6y Q8NIhCbu0cmD2nRGTAh+t3XqMpEUBpKW5C/iTcSy/byITAQYEQIADAUCOVhDvQUJ AeEzgAAKCRDOiYR3stUzVQPJAJwL+nNNnBdQQcvbDa6bO1A/ZcvLpgCdGe6XuIm+ DZF0qQF6DVTFKNCampo= =gask -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To
Hi. I read a lot about Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To recently (including in the mutt-users archive) and my conclusion is that: - Mail-Followup-To is not a standard and is supported by very few MUA's. - Reply-To should be able to do the right thing, even if some implementations are forcing people to use this field. I started using the Mail-Followup-To header, but didn't see any change at all in the volume of emails sent to me directly, which makes me think that using Reply-To instead would work better. What about adding a feature to Mutt which would basically put the information currently put in Mail-Followup-To in the Reply-To header? An option like followup_in_reply_to would be useful IMHO. Of course, mailing-lists adding a Reply-To header would break that, but anyway there is no perfect solution. Any comments? -- Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://larve.net/people/hugo/ Je crois ce que je vois, je vois ce que je regarde et je regarde ce que je veux. -- Blaise Pascal (?)
