Carbon Copies (CC's)

[Nick Simicich]

At 11:42 PM 2003-01-19 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
>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.

My last word on this (whole diuscussion).  Better than a made-up header 
that has no official status anywhere.

> > 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.

Why would that make any difference?  Either this is the right thing to do, 
in which case it should be a standard, or it is not, in which case it 
should not be.  If it is not written as a standard, why would anyone follow 
it when, as you assert, they can't get the standard's right?

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

I have read through RTMCH.  I reread it every time I reargue this mess. I 
guess I want to see if it has changed: It never does. I see no compelling 
points in it, since (1) I do not consider the person who wrote the mailing 
list message to be the publisher or the originator.  (2) What I read it as 
is the whine of someone who did not watch where their message would go and 
(3) since I had the fortitude to ignore it, I have successfully munged 
reply to for many more years, and, you know?  Actual users (not those who 
think that the correctness is more important than how useful it is) still 
think it is as good of an idea as they ever did.  Finally, Pine had a reply 
command that worked, it was all things to all people including those who 
optionally wanted to ignore reply-to.  The elm people should just have 
copied it rather than whining about it.

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

And, yet, RTMCH ignores all of the accidents and pissed users that result 
when the munging is not done.

> > 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.

RTMCH has no official status.  If it wanted official status, it should have 
been published as an RFC.  There have been many rebuttals to RTMCH 
published over the years.  They have no official status either.  If RTMCH 
was published, I am willing to bet that (1) it would have not gotten 
standards track and (2) that a rebuttal would have been published as an RFC.

> > 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.

There is the universal fix for all these maladies:  Cut and paste.  Every 
windoze user has to cut and/or paste every mailing list reply, especially 
without reply-to munging.  They also have to cut and paste replies to 
individuals.

>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.

If that is your point, then I respectfully request that the list owner turn 
on reply-to munging.  See the difference?  Some of us make requests, others 
make demands and offer to take their ball and bat and go home if the game 
is not played by their rules.

>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.

In your note to them, you might note the alternate forms - it can be a URL 
if posting is through same, or it can be "NO" if no posting is allowed.  I 
believe that there are other alternates.


--
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!