Carbon Copies (CC's)

[Matthias Andree]

Paul Tomblin <ptomblin at xcski.com> writes:

> Quoting Matthias Andree (matthias.andree at gmx.de):
>> Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful has some _*COMPELLING*_ points, and
>> I also stated mine. Do you still think there is any room for discussion?
>
> No, "RTMCH" was written by somebody who evidently thought that Elm was the
> best MUA in the world, and all its flaws and limitations were actually
> features.
>
> mutt handles Reply-To far better than elm, and just about every argument
> he makes is moot if you don't use elm.

So? Mutt handles Mail-Followup-To and mutt has native mailing list
support ("subscribe"), mutt doesn't count.

I've seen other mailers force the user to answer to Reply-To:, not just elm.

> How can there be any room for discussion when your attitude is "do it my
> way or I'll take my ball and go home"?

Not at all. I'm not willing to waste time with this discussion.

>> far too many accidents, pissed users and so on.
>
> I run mailing lists with over a thousand messages a week.  On them, things
> that go to the list that aren't meant to happen about once every three or
> four months.

Once every other year is still too much. It might contain sensitive
information that must not be disclosed or not at that time, and then the
Reply-To: mungers start looking pretty dumb. Don't get me wrong, I don't
wish this happens to anyone, neither list subscriber nor list operator.

>> Reply-To: is for users, not for machines. RTMCH states this expressis verbis.
>> been discussed. I stated my point. Once Reply-To: is munged, I'm off.
>
> Yes, very mature of you.

I share the view of RTMCH, so what?

>> I will ask the Gnus people to give List-Post some more importance when
>
> Ah, so rather than using a header that's been around since RFC-822 and
> works for everybody except people who use elm, you are going to make the
> whole rest of the world adopt a new header.

Nope, you missed the point, it looks as though Nick and you agree on the
standards issue: Nick stated that List-Post is standardized (though he
gave the wrong number, it is really RFC-2369), and Gnus has it in its
source code, so asking the Gnus people why Gnus still sends Cc: when a
List-Post: header is present looks like the right thing to do. Might be
a Gnus bug actually. Worked around now by explicit configuration.

Mail-Followup-To: is not an RFC standard, but used in many mailers, so
there is a value in placing it.

-- 
Matthias Andree