Carbon Copies (CC's)

[Matthias Andree]

Nick Simicich <njs at scifi.squawk.com> writes:

> 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:"

An optional header of RFC-2369? Well...

Nonetheless, I'll ask the Gnus guys why Gnus sends Cc: in the face of
this header.

> 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.

I don't care. Windows users don't even get the basics of RFC-821 and 822
right in 20 years, confuse envelope sender, Sender:, From: and
Reply-To:, so why should I waste my time? There is no hope from them to
get the advanced stuff correct.

Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful has some _*COMPELLING*_ points, and
I also stated mine. Do you still think there is any room for discussion?

Call me arrogant, but I won't accept Reply-To munging. There have been
far too many accidents, pissed users and so on.

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

Reply-To: is for users, not for machines. RTMCH states this expressis verbis.

> 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

My mailer CAN ignore Reply-To: munging, but some mailers, notably
Windoze mailers, of other people can't and will just send replies that
way, with *NO* way for the users to send off-list replies even when
adequate except prior editing of the received message. The use of
Reply-To: munging is prohibitive.

This is my final word on this topic. I won't discuss things that have
been discussed. I stated my point. Once Reply-To: is munged, I'm off.

I will ask the Gnus people to give List-Post some more importance when
present (avoiding Cc: and such), and I've reconfigured my Gnus to only
reply to the list. Thanks for pointing out the missing workaround for
the List-Post header on my end.

-- 
Matthias Andree