Carbon Copies (CC's)

[Nick Simicich]

At 08:19 PM 2003-01-19 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:

>Nick Simicich <njs at scifi.squawk.com> writes:
>
> >>No. Reply-To: takes precedence for either function, which is why I'm not
> >>discussing this further.
> >
> > (1) It depends on your MUA (2) I was trying to use the same reply
> > function for on and off list mail.
>
>ad 1: If the MUA doesn't heed Reply-To:, it's b0rken.
>
>ad 2: that cannot work. Reply for off-list, List reply for on-list
>replies, barring that, Group Reply for on-list.
>
> > You also sent me multiple copies of your reply, which means that you
> > can't manage your replies either.
>
>My MUA is fine. The list or alternatively your MUA, should add a
>Mail-Followup-To: header, then my reply would be to the list and only to
>the list.

Since what you are asking for is non-standard, not published in any 
standard, then it is bullshit.  The standard header would be "List-Post:"

> >>May I ask you to read http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html? It is getting
> >>adopted by more and more mail software, and it helps address the
> >>original problem.
> >
> > Is this in an RFC anywhere?
>
>No.

Then it is meaningless, except as a proposal.  It is silly to expect any 
major manufacturer or software writer to do anything that is not in a 
standard.  If you are serious, write an update to RFC2359.

> > Supported by any major windows MUA?
>
>I don't care. Windows is b0rken and many Windows applications are. As is
>your and David's Eudora, neither your 5.1 version nor David's 4.odds get
>References: right. And you argue about RFC compliance, mentioning a RFC
>that's been obsolete since April 2001? Please get serious.

Again, better than no RFC.  And I see nothing in 2822 that indicates that 
this suggested usage is either obsolete or against standards.

> > If not maybe it should be, and when it is, then I will consider it as
> > an alternative. If not, then I have seen nothing that supercedes the
> > original language in RFC822, and I also urge the people who run this
> > list to begin inserting reply-to.
>
>Should this happen, I will immediately retreat from doing any bogofilter
>work without further warning until someone assures that Reply-To munging
>is switched off and will not be switched on again.

This is the typical reaction of the "no-reply-to-munging" advocates.  The 
reaction is irrational, and silly.  You do not like reply-to munging -- 
your mailer can't deal with it and you are too lazy to deal with it 
yourself (you did it again in this reply -- you sent me an off-list reply 
and cc'd the list) and your only reaction is to demand that the world adapt 
to you, and to threaten to withdraw, not only from the list but from work 
on the project.  Pretty damn silly.  Yet it is this reaction that causes 
many lists to drop reply-to munging and to inconvenience everyone involved.

> > what you need to do is get it into a major Windows mailer. That will
> > happen about 2 years after a Standard track RFC is written, and then
> > Outlook will do it wrong (they are still replying to sender in some
> > circumstances, last time I checked).
>
>I don't care about inferior software. Indeed, Mail-Followup-To should be
>set by the list if the MUA doesn't do that.

I assert that any software that does not follow standards is inferior.  By 
the way, as I mentioned, there is a standard for how to mark lists, and how 
to specify the posting address:  RFC2359 - List-post:

--
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc.  But if it is not all three of Unsolicited,
Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the
hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on
confusion.  If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs at scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!