* Robert Smits [08-11-06 22:18]:

Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.

Can you explain a little more about the mechanism of how this occurs? I'm guessing it's the threading software?

On Friday 11 August 2006 21:28, Patrick Shanahan wrote: no, it's not the threading software which would be your email client which displays the threads. Threads depending on the email client are based on three things: 1. the 'References:' header 2. the 'In-Reply-To:' header 3. the 'Subject:' header the first two utilize the 'Message-Id:' References: <44DCB68F.3070605@dewhirst.com.au> In-Reply-To: <44DCB68F.3070605@dewhirst.com.au> Message-Id: <200608111918.45280.bob@rsmits.ca> Subject: Re: [SLE] [OT] Proposed SuSE List Etiquette You may still utilize the technique presented previous, _if_ you delete the 'Refrences:' and 'In-Reply-To:' headers and alter the 'Subject:' header. Open a message that appears third or fourth in a thread and look at the headers. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 ***************************************************************************** Set your mail client to display ALL headers, by default most mail clients hide this geeky info from the reader (in KMail set View > Headers > All). KMail uses "fancy" headers by default. An easy way to start a new message thread, without hijacking an existing thread, is to click the list address in the header; this opens a new blank message addressed to the list address.

On Friday 11 August 2006 20:44, John Andersen wrote:

Now See Bob, you just hijacked another thread!!! ;-)

Since you use Kmail you can get the address just by singe clicking the address in any post. If you have Veiw/Headers set to Fancy or Standard, you will see the header in every post. Just single click the one that says suse-linux-e@suse.com

Also if you filter this list into a folder, you can click the folder and then click Folder/Mailing list management in the main menu to tell kmail that this folder contains a mailing list. You can set the list address in that same panel. From then on you just right click the folder and select new message to mailing list.

(They keep moving this capability around in Kmail, but its still one of the best mailers for mailing lists)>

Yes, it really is. It's been so long since I actually looked at all the headers, I'd completely forgotten about most of them. And that's a neat trick, being able to designate a folder as one containing a mailing list. I know it does it automatically a lot of the time when I create a filter, but not always. Thanks again. Bob.

Robert Smits wrote:

Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.

In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message. Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* James Knott [08-12-06 07:47]:

...

Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)

http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

A consistent method of working would be nice, but this is a client problem rather than the list. However a number of lists mess things up by trying to enforce their own rules :( I am trying to send this to the list. All the messages from this list end up in my SUSE folder, and it would be nice if when I select 'compose' against that folder the list address came up - much like newsgroups? This would help 'thread hijack' as well. Since nothing in the SUSE folder was sent to me personally *I* expect to always reply to the list, but currently everything gets switched as if I was personally replying to an individual. I can see the 'argument' that you may want to reply privately, but I would only expect that on my 'inbox' when I RECEIVE an email privately. If I am in an open 'channel' then emails are public. So personally I need a client that Unmuges the Mung and replies automatically to the relevant address for a folder ;) In the meantime I'll live with the agro and continue to use Mozilla. :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

On 06/08/14 10:20 (GMT+0100) Lester Caine apparently typed:

A consistent method of working would be nice, but this is a client problem rather than the list. However a number of lists mess things up by trying to enforce their own rules :(

I am trying to send this to the list. All the messages from this list end up in my SUSE folder, and it would be nice if when I select 'compose' against that folder the list address came up - much like newsgroups? This would help 'thread hijack' as well.

Since nothing in the SUSE folder was sent to me personally *I* expect to always reply to the list, but currently everything gets switched as if I was personally replying to an individual. I can see the 'argument' that you may want to reply privately, but I would only expect that on my 'inbox' when I RECEIVE an email privately. If I am in an open 'channel' then emails are public.

So personally I need a client that Unmuges the Mung and replies automatically to the relevant address for a folder ;) In the meantime I'll live with the agro and continue to use Mozilla. :)

Voting for https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344998 might help in this regard. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:

...

In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.

Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)

That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.

Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.

Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/

John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

...

On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

...

On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:

...

In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.

Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-) That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.

Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.

Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?

...

Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.

Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that?

Doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous to have a rule which everyone is obligated to break by finding a work-around or by switching to a different (a so-called "proper") email client or by fixing it manually with every email sent? The rationale for this rule seems to be, "What server configuration can be set in order to inconvenience as many people as possible?" Not to worry though. This topic will probably die off in twenty or thirty years. Maybe not... but probably.

William Gallafent wrote:

On Monday 14 August 2006 09:23, ken wrote:

...

Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?

RFC2822 explains why Reply-To is _not_ the correct way to manage this issue.

So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?

RFC2369 explains the correct method. (RFC2919 is also relevant.)

On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:

It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only a draft standard that cannot reach concensus.

It's actually a "proposed standard", which is less far advanced than "draft standard" (I think). It is, nevertheless, the best available document describing how things work at the moment.

Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.

I agree, and I haven't noticed anybody insisting that anyone else follows any ridiculous rules. The observation has simply been made that this list is configured according to the closest thing to a standard which _does_ exist, and which is likely eventually to become a standard. Many people are using mail clients which are deficient with respect to another long-lived _proposed_ standard (RFC2369), and suggest that the list should deviate from RFC2822 (by setting Reply-To despite not being the author of the message) in order to save them one click until their mail client implements appropriate handling of the RFC2369 headers. I'm sure well-reasoned suggestions for the modification of the meaning of Reply-To (which would have to include changing it from an originator header to a resent or trace header, I imagine) in future RFCs designed to supersede RFC2822 will be welcomed by those drafting those documents. A legal analogy: If you don't like a legal bill before it becomes an act, then lobby democratically to have it altered before it's made law; if you don't like a law which has already been passed, then lobby to have it rescinded or superseded; in the mean time, you may choose to break it or abide by it, as may everybody else. The owner of the list has chosen to abide by the closest thing to a law for email that exists so far. The internet is very young, so many areas do not have any "laws" that have yet been passed; they are still only proposed. It's not "illegal" to deviate from a proposed standard. To avoid chaos, though, and to promote interoperability, it's advisable to abide by the proposed "laws" which do exist, and it's helpful to suggest improvements to them which will ensure that when, in the fullness of time, they become standards, they do indeed reflect the needs and desires of those whom they affect, viz: us. So, suggest away.

From: "John Andersen"

To Dismiss RFCs because they are not universally encoded in statute is ridiculous.

What are the conditions like in your pigeon coop. If you want to meet all RFCs you MUST have one, right? {^_-}

jdow wrote:

From: "William Gallafent"

...

On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:

...

....

...

...

Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.

....

That doesn't make it "right", though. {^,-}

...

....

This, IMO, is the essence of this whole hullabaloo: intelligent vs. "correct".

I suspect this issue is not particularly well suited to being a "standard" which should be obeyed and probably never will be on a wide basis. Meanwhile I need to fiddle this list in procmail, too. Then what others do with headers doesn't matter. Replies will go to the list as Ghod intended.

Joanne, For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?

{^_^} Joanne

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* ken [08-14-06 17:39]:

...

For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?

A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions.

This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again. Thanks.

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* ken [08-14-06 19:05]:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* ken [08-14-06 17:39]:

...

For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct? A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.

It sure does. If you add via procmail a 'Reply-To: <list-address>' header to incoming list mail, when you reply to it, it will automagically take the list address. What is there to not understand?

:0: * ^X-Mailinglist:.*opensuse|\ ^TO_.*opensuse@ ! $FORMAIL -i "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" $MAILDIR/opensuse

this will add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.

is more explanation necessary?

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit: If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC? I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that. I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity). But it could be that *adding* a Reply-To doesn't violate 2822 (for those squeamish about that); i.e., the list server could *add* a "Reply-To suse-linux-e@suse.com" to all its incoming mail and this would make both the "correct" and sensible camps happy. It wouldn't be _changing_ the author's Reply-To, but it would allow the list to function like a many-to-many medium... as originally intended. (Yes, this would mean posters would receive duplicates. But (1) this is, IMO, far less annoying and (2) could be filtered out easily on the client side and, should we find enlightenment, perhaps eventually on the server side.) Would this lexical workaround applied to the list server raise anyone's hackles? If so, how?

Basil Chupin wrote:

ken wrote:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

.... add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.

is more explanation necessary?

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit:

If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC?

I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that. I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity). But it could be that *adding* a Reply-To doesn't violate 2822 (for those squeamish about that); i.e., the list server could *add* a "Reply-To suse-linux-e@suse.com" to all its incoming mail and this would make both the "correct" and sensible camps happy. It wouldn't be _changing_ the author's Reply-To, but it would allow the list to function like a many-to-many medium... as originally intended.

(Yes, this would mean posters would receive duplicates. But (1) this is, IMO, far less annoying and (2) could be filtered out easily on the client side and, should we find enlightenment, perhaps eventually on the server side.)

Would this lexical workaround applied to the list server raise anyone's hackles? If so, how?

I am not into this thing anymore (after years of arguments in the Fidonet world back in late 80's early 90's) about RFCs, but just on the above point.

I can relate. I've been doing email lists since 1981 and they've always functioned in the way you describe below (what I've termed alternately the intelligent/sensible method). Those in the opposing ("correct") camp draw on one sentence in RFC 2822 which suggests that no one should change the contents of the author's Reply-To field, therefore the mailing list software should leave it alone and the default Reply-To is always the poster instead of the list. It seems to me that the recipient of an email *can* alter the Reply-To field of an incoming email. Indeed, I can take an email I receive and send or not send my reply to it to anyone I please. As the recipient of the email, I can even delete the email if that's what I want to do. So I don't see how that one sentence in RFC 2822 applies to any recipient of any email. Now isn't the list server the recipient of my (and all subscribers') emails? After all, that's where I'm (and all subscribers are) sending email. So as the recipient of my and others' email, just as I am allowed to change the Reply-To field, I believe the list server is likewise allowed to alter the Reply-To field... and _should_ in a sensible way, in a way which makes it a many-to-many technology by default, i.e., without need of a separate, "correct" email client or cludges or technical workarounds on the client side, a way which allows even Windows users to participate in this list. This doesn't mean that a list server is permitted to change anything else in subscribers' emails, not the body or the "Sender" or "From" or "Date" fields. Just the Reply-To. Therefore, in the rare instance when I want to reply only to the author of an email sent to the list, then I can do that also.

I subscribe to the smart updater forum, the smart@labix.org list, and there the server has Reply-to in the message headers which is set to 'Reply-to smart@labix.org' .

Now the interesting part about that is that when I hit the Reply To All button on my mailer (Thunderbird) the ONLY address which comes up in the TO field is.... you guessed it, smart@labix.org. There are NO other TOs or CCs. Nothing. My reply goes only to smart@labix.org.

Yeah. I agree. Generally and historically this is how distribution lists function and how they were originally intended to work. Even those in the "correct" camp would concur with this, but they insist that one sentence in a draft RFC means we should all change email clients or install cludges or hand-edit the addresses every time we correspond with the list. I always thought that computers were supposed to make life simpler and easier, not more complicated and time-consuming and difficult.

Why can't the SuSE Help server put in the Repy-To field and make everybody happy?

(I don't suppose this would ever happen, it's too sensible.)

We need to be patient... I'm sure it'll happen eventually. In twenty or thirty years we'll all look back on this and have a good chuckle.

Cheers.

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* ken [08-15-06 08:41]:

...

Even those in the "correct" camp would concur with this, but they insist that one sentence in a draft RFC means we should all change email clients or install cludges or hand-edit the addresses every time we correspond with the list.

Point: It is a "Proposed Standard", not a "Draft".

The real point here, Patrick, is that it matter not whether it is called "Proposed" or "Draft" - it is simply all a big nothing because it has not been accepted and ratified as THE standard. Until it is (and this may take decades!) you can do whatever you like :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1

ken wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

ken wrote:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

.... add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.

[pruned]

...

I am not into this thing anymore (after years of arguments in the Fidonet world back in late 80's early 90's) about RFCs, but just on the above point.

I can relate. I've been doing email lists since 1981 and they've always functioned in the way you describe below (what I've termed alternately the intelligent/sensible method). Those in the opposing ("correct") camp draw on one sentence in RFC 2822 which suggests that no one should change the contents of the author's Reply-To field, therefore the mailing list software should leave it alone and the default Reply-To is always the poster instead of the list.

It seems to me that the recipient of an email *can* alter the Reply-To field of an incoming email. Indeed, I can take an email I receive and send or not send my reply to it to anyone I please. As the recipient of the email, I can even delete the email if that's what I want to do. So I don't see how that one sentence in RFC 2822 applies to any recipient of any email.

<Groan> You are doing it, aren't you? You are drawing me into something I don't want to touch and haven't touched since early 90's :-) . But, OK, you've done it :-) . Have to disagree with you. Let's not touch on the subject of e-mail because there are 2 types of e-mail: the private ones and the ones which end up here- in a public forum but distributed in e-mail form. With respect of *private* e-mail you have no right to distribute it to anyone else UNLESS you obtain the permission of the sender. Re the e-mails which end up here, while the privacy thing is irrelevant -- but CROSS-POSTING would be - you do not have the right to alter the contents et al. because you are not the author/owner of the e-mail. YOur mail should be transmitted in its original form and without any alterations.

Now isn't the list server the recipient of my (and all subscribers') emails? After all, that's where I'm (and all subscribers are) sending email. So as the recipient of my and others' email, just as I am allowed to change the Reply-To field, I believe the list server is likewise allowed to alter the Reply-To field... and _should_ in a sensible way, in a way which makes it a many-to-many technology by default, i.e., without need of a separate, "correct" email client or cludges or technical workarounds on the client side, a way which allows even Windows users to participate in this list.

This doesn't mean that a list server is permitted to change anything else in subscribers' emails, not the body or the "Sender" or "From" or "Date" fields. Just the Reply-To. Therefore, in the rare instance when I want to reply only to the author of an email sent to the list, then I can do that also.

Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it? I can't see one in any of the messages I have looked at. To me that means that the author/sender did *not* have this field in his/her original message and therefore *this* (SuSE) server can add this field to all the e-mails which arrive in this forum. End of story :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Basil Chupin [08-15-06 09:03]:

...

Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?

There is/was, but I haven't seen one since December 2005. I have quoted relevant lines from the header.

X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e X-Message-Number-for-archive: 258011 Delivered-To: mailing list suse-linux-e@suse.com Received: (qmail 11112 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2005 22:28:01 -0000 From: Gil Weber Reply-To: gil@gilweber.com To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:27:58 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <121720052242.9430.43A494530007FE40000024D62200734076989A0207040207029D0A04@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <121720052242.9430.43A494530007FE40000024D62200734076989A0207040207029D0A04@comcast.net>

Ah OK, so it happens. But, heck, one in all the thousands between 24/12/05 and today?! :-) . BTW, have you looked at the header(s) for messages from you? You are using gmail as your mail host and for some reason it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To . Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think. Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1

William Gallafent wrote:

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:38, Basil Chupin wrote (in reply to Patrick Shanahan):

...

... it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To. Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think.

Wow, that really looks like a can of worms!

http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-822/2005-05/msg00050.html

Anything to do with "standards" for messages, whether in Fidonet or Internet, will be a can of worms. Always has been, always will be. BTW, have you looked at the header of your message to Anders Johansson, "Proposed SuSE List Etiquette"? You posted that message as a new, original, message in THIS forum and as a result it does not contain a Reply-To field :-) . But this one (the one I am replying to now) was posted it seems in the suse-ot list and therefore the SuSE server inserted a Reply-To (reply to suse-ot list). All fascinating stuff, ain't it? :-) . One thing here, another thing there. Standards, standards, standards! "We heard of them! And we lives by them!" :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1

* Basil Chupin [08-15-06 09:40]:

Ah OK, so it happens. But, heck, one in all the thousands between 24/12/05 and today?! :-) .

Yes, I can site 500+ if you like. I only sited one for example :^).

BTW, have you looked at the header(s) for messages from you? You are using gmail as your mail host and for some reason it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To . Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think.

No, I rarely post mail via gmail, but I do receive mail there and dl with fetchmail. I just use that From: address so the list accepts my mail. That way I see my own posts :^). -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:03, Basil Chupin wrote:

Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?

This one, where I unsuccessfully attempted to divert the conversation to a more appropriate list: Message-Id: <200608150938.47561.william@gallaf.net> Of course, this didn't help people who configure their systems not to honour this header.

I can't see one in any of the messages I have looked at. To me that means that the author/sender did *not* have this field in his/her original message and therefore *this* (SuSE) server can add this field to all the e-mails which arrive in this forum.

Since the SuSE server is not the author of the message, it does not have that right. From, Sender and Reply-To all refer to the _originator_ of the message, not to any system which resends it.

End of story :-) .

You wish ;)

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:54, Basil Chupin wrote:

William Gallafent wrote:

...

Message-Id: <200608150938.47561.william@gallaf.net>

To me this is not enough information to find the exact message you are referring to.

That's OK, I did it here too :)

But, have you looked at the header to your message (the one I am replying to)? For some inexplicable reason it has a Repy-To field, and it is "suse-ot@suse.com" which means that a SuSE server put in the Reply-To field.

Allow me to explicate: I (being the author) put that header in myself - it wasn't put there by the server. To quote our favourite RFC, 'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.' So, I used that header to express my suggestion that this thread would live better in the suse-ot list. Admittedly, I didn't really expect that to happen :)

I said that a person's message should (and it really should be "must") not be interfered with during transmission and arrive at the destination as originally sent. (Proviso: all ISPs reserve the right I believe to delete a message if it contains a virus et al.)

However, this does not mean that after its arrival the server on which it has arrived cannot add some field(s) which do not interfere with the original message.

When has a message "arrived"? when it gets to the SuSE server, or when it gets to a subscriber to the list? (I say the latter, and that the former is really a sort of glorified intelligent relay of some kind ;)

If there is no Reply-To field in the original message then the server can add one (Reply-To: SuSE server - just like to your message).

Critical point being that _I_ put that header in, not the server! The server reproduced it faithfully, fulfilling the "no interference" rule you state.

If there is a Reply-To field already then the server honours it and does not insert its own field. QED.

Here we differ. I interpret the Reply-To header as the email address which the _author_ suggests I send my reply to. If the list server adds it, it's misleading me in to thinking the author intended the reply to go to the list, whereas in fact that was the intention of the list server, and the author's decision to omit the Reply-To header has been overridden.

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:04, Rob Unsworth wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?

Yep, The one I sent earlier today and of course this one.

The message in which you wrote this does not have a Reply-To header.

Rob Unsworth wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?

Yep, The one I sent earlier today and of course this one.

Sorry Rob, but check the full header. There is no Reply-To field. Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1

* ken [08-15-06 06:48]:

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit:

If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC?

Because the only affected publically (note: pubically) is that which you respond and you become the author with the right to add the 'Reply-To:' header. None of the other postings are seen by anyone but you. What you do on your box is your business and does not affect the rest of the world/list.

I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that.

No, it sure doesn't appear that way, expecially since there is no "contradiction".

I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity).

Now you are *re*-expressing your opinion. You cannot see the logic. The rest is rant and snipped. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Ken,

On Monday 14 August 2006 16:03, ken wrote:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* ken [08-14-06 17:39]:

...

For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct? A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.

One way or the other, KMail can edit (add, remove or modify) headers on incoming and outgoing mail based on any criteria that the filtering system allows.

It can also pass mail through an external program.

Deficient mail clients (MUAs) are the root of this whole recurring "debate." Use quality (free) software and take control over your email-based interactions while not foisting on others behaviors that contravene the standards.

...

Thanks.

Randall Schulz

Randall, thanks for the tip. I've read this already many times on this list. I just don't think I should have to change my MUA, or use a particular client separately for this list. I'm on about thirty lists; what if they all required different clients? Plus, I don't buy the arguments of the "correct" camp. Kmail might be a fine email client, but for me it's largely a matter of principle. Secondly, don't assume self-interest. After quite a bit of (needless but enforced) diddling with Tbird, I have a client which functions with the current list configuration well enough for now (and, I'm hoping, doesn't mess up my communications with any of the other lists). So as a practical matter I, personally, don't need to change clients. I'm arguing, not for myself, but for the benefit of others on this and similarly configured lists, now and in future.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:

From: "ken"

...

jdow wrote:

...

...

on a wide basis. Meanwhile I need to fiddle this list in procmail, too. Then what others do with headers doesn't matter. Replies will go to the list as Ghod intended.

Joanne,

For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?

I fiddle the incoming from lists that don't do it what *I* consider the right way, that is to say the way that makes my life easier.

This procmail recipe will add the Reply-To: to all incoming suse-linux-e emails. I use pine and when replying get the option to use the reply to address or the poster. I have no idea how it works on graphical clients, and no desire to find out..... well I am curious. :0f * ^X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e | /usr/bin/formail -bfi "Reply-To:suse-linux-e@suse.com" :0 a: $HOME/Mail/IN-Suse-linux-e -- Regards, | Lions District 201 Q3 Rob Unsworth | IT & Internet Chairman Ipswich, Australia | http://www.lionsq3.asn.au -------------------------------------------------

From: "William Gallafent"

On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:

...

So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?

Note that RFC2822 applies to all email, whether it is sent to a list server or not.

No, it does not apply to ANY mail unless the particular ISP or user wishes it to apply. RFC2822 is NOT a standard. It is MERELY a draft standard. {^_^} There goes Joanne being picky again.

On Monday 14 August 2006 23:08, ken wrote:

William Gallafent wrote:

...

On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:

...

So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?

Note that RFC2822 applies to all email, whether it is sent to a list server or not.

=== Section 3.6.2. Originator fields:

When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. ===

I suspected (was afraid) that this particular sentence was the heart of the storm. Taken out of context, it does sound definitive.

...

It is up to the _author_ of the message to decide what goes in the Reply-To header. Systems which subsequently process the email, after it has been sent, are not the author, and as such are not entitled to decide what should go in the Reply-To field.

If the author wishes to put the list address in the Reply-To field (as I have here), that's fine.

Yeah, I've had to explain the same thing to several irate people who write back to me, asking "WHY ARE YOU WRITING TO ME?????" Yet another benefit of the current configuration. :)

No, I've seen comments like that about list mail. Some people just don't understand very much about email. Incidentally, RFC2822 is a "Proposed Standard", one of the first stages of the RFC standards track. It's a long way away from becoming a standard, so whether it's definitive or not is uninteresting until it makes it all the way up to a real RFC standard

On Monday 14 August 2006 23:32, Felix Miata wrote:

The RFC is deficient in presuming anyone knows the meaning of "author". I really don't care who wrote the content. I only care who sent it to me. The writer of the content did not send it to me, so I really don't care what he wants or what his headers included or not. The listserv sent it to me, so as far as I'm concerned, until a distinction is made in the RFC for list mail, the listserv is the author, not the content writer.

Ah yes, and of course the US Post Office is the author of Time Magazine, right? A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:10, Dave Howorth wrote:

I think Felix had a point. The US post office isn't the author, but neither is it the publisher. It's [just] a common carrier. Does the RFC recognize the notion of a publisher? Because that's what the list is, IMHO.

It's not though. It's a distributor. Hence "distribution list" I admit that my analogy with the post office was bad, a better analogy would perhaps be with the third party subscription services that magazines like Time use to pester their subscribers with renewal offers (but also for the basic stuff, like keeping track of who has a subscription)

I think most of the debate on this issue misses the point. That is, IMHO, that the requirements haven't been clearly analysed and consequently the solution isn't especially good!

It's clear that a common carrier (ISP etc) is the wrong entity to determine the reply-to address, or anything else. It's equally clear that the author needs to be the ultimate determiner of the reply-to address.

Yes

The problems come with the in-between cases. Mostly, we'd like the 'publisher' to decide the reply-to address. But are they smart enough to deal with e.g out-of-office replies? Are they smart enough to deflect spam? The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that we need a basic redesign of email delivery/routing mechanisms, including lists.

Cheers, Dave

Felix Miata wrote:

On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:

...

A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong

That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from, the distributor, listserv, or whatever the RFC might choose to name the indispensable most direct source, as distinguished from author.

Felix, well put. And let me say once more, here we have... Another expression of our ongoing discussion as one between intelligent and "correct".

Anders Johansson wrote:

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:57, ken wrote:

...

Another expression of our ongoing discussion as one between intelligent and "correct".

Calling people unintelligent because they don't agree with you is not a very well liked debating technique

Your criticism is misplaced. I was referring-- not to any person-- but to the arguments offered on each side. Read the statement again. I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". To clarify a bit more.... I don't know anyone on this list personally and so not responding to persons. I'm responding to the list. (And to the discussions on this list in toto.) See?

From: "Anders Johansson"

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:

...

I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct".

Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting

Proof by repeated assertion never makes sense. {^_^}

suse@rio.vg wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:

...

I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting

I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...

But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.

This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken". It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down. More simply, it is the way it is because it would be impossible to change. Like changing the law making the Brits drive on the right. It ain't going to happen. It is too deeply embedded. But you can change the law and say its OK to put the steering wheel on whichever side of the car you want. You could put out a spec for a mail client which detects a list and automatically sends your "reply" to the list instead of the "reply-to(author)" We should save this sort of quixotic stuff for Fridays. Mike

Evidence his rant about how hard it would be for him to reply only to the author: "Look at the original message header, write down the sender's email address, hit the "r" key, call up the header editing menu, erase the current To: value, and type in the sender's full email address." Apparently, the author is completely incapable of using this new-fangled invention called a "mouse", which can, apparently "select", then "copy" text. (It's only been around for a good 30 years) Not to mention that the vast majority of e-mail programs list the headers conveniently with every compose for easy editing. I use three different mail programs, depending on where I am and what I'm doing. mutt, thunderbird, and horde. Each of them behaves differently, but editing a "To:" field isn't that hard in any of them.

Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.

Personality, the reply-to is not a big deal to me, but I despise whiny brats that rant on about how everyone in the universe should conform to their console fetish, or how their method is somehow the most "proper" regardless of the utility to the vast majority of users.

The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.

jdow wrote:

From: "Mike Dewhirst"

...

suse@rio.vg wrote:

...

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:

...

I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting

I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...

But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.

This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken".

It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down.

Merely publishing an RFC does not make it an Internet Standard. Some

My point is that investment in software is what creates inertia and momentum on the "standards" track. You (or the net total of all desires on the suse list) cannot change that. Don't tilt at windmills :) You can change your mail client to one which does what you personally want. If you can't find one then ask others to contribute towards making one which suits your needs. That's the open source way.

RFCs have become Internet Standards and the IETF is a little dumb to let them remain as RFCs rather than formally making them standards.

The rationale is that software development drives the process. The RFC follows and tries to pick the right path to "standardising" the interfaces so we don't get the tower of babel across the wires. They remain as RFCs for a long time precisely so that ongoing software development can stick to the beaten API path for the most part but can still innovate off the path. Usually one RFC is superceded by a later one which embeds the good (in the IETF's opinion) innovations but still retains RFC status until the cows come home or no innovations occur or the entire technology is replaced.

If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time.

I think you mean "If we didn't follow RFCs ..." Mike

{^_^}

Scott Leighton wrote:

On Monday 14 August 2006 8:36 pm, Mike Dewhirst wrote:

...

...

If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time. I think you mean "If we didn't follow RFCs ..."

Mike

No, he meant what he said, see the RFC's here...

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2549.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt

FOFLOL

Scott

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:11, jdow wrote:

No sir. There was an RFC for IP over carrier pigeon written. Had the RFCs been considered compulsory then that document would have had to be taken seriously and the technology developed, stalling all sorts of interesting things like "the web".

Well, just because someone publishes a standard, even if it becomes officially adopted by ANSI/ISO/Whatever, that doesn't mean anyone is actually forced to implement it. All it means is that if you ever implement TCPoP (Transmission Control Protocol over Pigeon), and want to call yourself standards compliant, you have to abide by that standard

Mon, 14 Aug 2006, by suse@rio.vg: [..]

Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.

Being voted for by a majority doesn't automatically make it the "right way".

Personality, the reply-to is not a big deal to me, but I despise whiny brats that rant on about how everyone in the universe should conform to their console fetish, or how their method is somehow the most "proper" regardless of the utility to the vast majority of users.

So, what's next then, the majority thinks that this threading thing is only getting in the way of how "easy" it is to abuse an ongoing discussion to post a new mail, so they'll vote it to be ignored in future? Next, no more CLI questions or advice allowed, because that's just too fucking difficult and intimidating? Then what, HTML and blinking smiley's in all posts? Why don't we just start an MSN group right away, so all fucking nitwits can effordlessly and thoughtlessly do whatever they're used to in chat channels?

The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.

You're suppost to be in control of devices you use, not being controlled by them. Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 26N , 4 29 47E. + ICQ: 277217131 SUSE 9.2 + Jabber: muadib@jabber.xs4all.nl Kernel 2.6.8 + See headers for PGP/GPG info. Claimer: any email I receive will become my property. Disclaimers do not apply.

Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:

Mon, 14 Aug 2006, by suse@rio.vg: [..]

...

Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.

Being voted for by a majority doesn't automatically make it the "right way".

Who said anything about voting? The point is utility. The "right way" is the way that provides the most utility to the most people at that moment. We must always guard against the fear of change.

So, what's next then, the majority thinks that this threading thing is only getting in the way of how "easy" it is to abuse an ongoing discussion to post a new mail, so they'll vote it to be ignored in future?

I would suspect that the vast majority of people are using mail clients that properly thread mail. Therefore, it provides utility. If, in the future, there's a new way of reading mail that at the moment I cannot conceive of, perhaps then it should be eliminated. Until that point, I say we stick with what works for the vast majority of users.

Next, no more CLI questions or advice allowed, because that's just too fucking difficult and intimidating? Then what, HTML and blinking smiley's in all posts?

Difficult and intimidating? Bwhahahahahaha! You completely misunderstand me. I'm not against command lines. I run servers for a living, nearly all the work I do on them is command line. What I despise is the proposition that everything should be limited to the console. I'm talking about people who believe X is an impurity and a mouse is only for macs. The type of person that believes anyone who doesn't do things their archaic way is automatically doing it wrong and their way is always right because that's the way they did it in 1985. The world has moved on. There are new factors and other input to be considered. The point is to use whatever is best for your users.

Why don't we just start an MSN group right away, so all fucking nitwits can effordlessly and thoughtlessly do whatever they're used to in chat channels?

I wouldn't know anything about that. I've never seen an MSN group. If you're more comfortable there, I'm sure they can accommodate you..

...

The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.

You're suppost to be in control of devices you use, not being controlled by them.

Precisely. But the fellow who wrote that article believes the opposite. He believes that everyone else needs to conform to how his computer works, as he has done. That sort of mindset is something that must be challenged at all turns. If we listen to these people, technology will never move forward, but instead be stuck at whatever arbitrary point where they conformed themselves to the system.

Anders Johansson wrote:

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:12, Felix Miata wrote:

...

On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:

...

A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from,

Right up to the point at which they inadvertently spread private information all over the internet because they forgot that pressing "reply" sent it to everyone

....

By this logic, we shouldn't have computers at all... somebody might make a mistake!! :0

On 06/08/14 19:13 (GMT-0400) Anders Johansson apparently typed:

Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Please read: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2006-08/msg00170.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2006-08/msg00177.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2005/12/msg01865.html http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/77038 -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

From: "Anders Johansson"

On Monday 14 August 2006 23:32, Felix Miata wrote:

...

The RFC is deficient in presuming anyone knows the meaning of "author". I really don't care who wrote the content. I only care who sent it to me. The writer of the content did not send it to me, so I really don't care what he wants or what his headers included or not. The listserv sent it to me, so as far as I'm concerned, until a distinction is made in the RFC for list mail, the listserv is the author, not the content writer.

Ah yes, and of course the US Post Office is the author of Time Magazine, right?

A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong

The USPS is a conduit. It is not a remailer service. If you send a letter to Jill via USPS she gets it and nobody else gets copies. If, then, Jill collates the contents of your letter with a collection of other letters, makes as many copies as there were contributors and mails out the collection the usual usage for such Amateur Press Association operations is that replies go back to Jill and are collated into the next distribution or "distie". This is a very common newsletter technique. This group fits that sort of definition. You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list? {^_^} Joanne

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:02, jdow wrote:

You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list?

Exactly. Hence the list family of headers of RFC2369, which facilitate this. I think that the RFC2822 is only deficient with respect to list handling in as much as it doesn't talk about it at all (which is fine, it's not necessary there). RFC2369, on the other hand, describes headers which provide all the necessary additional information for a client to implement exactly what you suggest, without munging messages to give the impression that the author had a certain intention, when in fact that intention was of the list administrator. So, in the situation that the list conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, and the client also conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, everything works exactly as you suggest (my client is configured (by default) so that when I press "R", meaning "Reply", to a list message, the reply is addressed to the list). The list sets List-Post, and the client is configured to send replies to list messages to the list. Incidentally, the extra action you mention is simply an alternative action - "Reply to Author" instead of "Reply". That's exactly the action which is broken if the list sets the Reply-To header. Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:16, jdow wrote:

Remember that carrier pigeons have a higher RFC number, today, than your precious 2369.

If I want to send internet packets on a pigeon, I'm going to use that approach rather than inventing a new one of my own, for sure. Why go to all the trouble of reinventing the wheel (or in this case, the bird)? Similarly, since there are several published and well known descriptions of how to formulate internet messages, including details of extra header information

Default behavior has been to use the Reply-to header if it is present falling back on the From header.

For the "Reply-to-Author" pattern, yes. "Reply-to-List" should clearly do something else, and a generic "Reply" function should do what the user configures it to do.

Making a change in the default behavior is bad. And making the default behavior different than users expect is bad. Hence presuming that the List- headers in 2369 mean they are to be used in place of Reply-to is a little ingenuous to say the least.

Disingenuous? Nowhere did I suggest that List-Post should be used to _override_ Reply-To, only that using Reply-To _instead_ of List-Post to transmit information inserted by the list server is inappropriate. If a list message arrives for me which contains a Reply-To header, and I press reply, then my reply is addressed to the Reply-To address, as you would expect. If Reply-To is absent, it is addressed to the List-Post address, if it came from a list which correctly sets the RFC2369 list headers (I could turn this off, but it is exactly the ideal list-reply behaviour users of nonconformant clients perform workarounds to achieve). Otherwise, it is addressed to the From address.

...

So, in the situation that the list conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, and the client also conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, everything works exactly as you suggest (my client is configured (by default) so that when I press "R", meaning "Reply", to a list message, the reply is addressed to the list). The list sets List-Post, and the client is configured to send replies to list messages to the list.

Incidentally, the extra action you mention is simply an alternative action - "Reply to Author" instead of "Reply". That's exactly the action which is broken if the list sets the Reply-To header.

No - that violates the principle of "least surprise." It is bad UI design.

You've lost me here - which part violates that principle? (or, to put it another way, what is the "least surprising" behaviour for a "Reply-To-Author" command, and that for a generic "Reply" command, variously in the presence or absence of Reply-To and the various list headers, in particular List-Post?) I have various options when I reply to any message, all of which do what they claim to do (unless a header which is supposed to contain information about the author has been misused, and in fact contains information about a list server, for example). My standard "Reply" command honours Reply-To, if present, and also uses List-Post to facilitate sending replies to list messages to the list in the absence of a Reply-To header. If I wish to perform one of the less common paths, this is easy too - "Reply-to-List" allows me to send to the list address even if Reply-To was set, "Reply-to-Author" allows me to email the author directly at his Reply-To (if present) or From address, and "Reply-to-All" (probably From, Reply-To, To, can't remember since I rarely use this one) are straightforwardly available. It does this without any even vaguely controversial use of any message header, by using the published specifications of a proposed standard way to do this, which seem to work very well.

...

Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)

Didn't work. I rewrite the headers on the way in.

So you effectively always ignore the Reply-To header, on any email from the list? Well, that's your loss I suppose.

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 17:15, Jos van Kan wrote:

jdow schreef:

...

Didn't work. I rewrite the headers on the way in.

{^,-} Joanne

What happened to your left eye? Somebody hit you?

The list is totally inflexible. It's free and it works. If you want support then why not pay for a Novell solution. Same software, same reliability. Different price. Lynn.

William Gallafent wrote:

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:02, jdow wrote:

...

You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list?

....

Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)

So it's okay for someone to put in a Reply-To of, say, ogre@homelandsecurity.gov and this listserver will diligently pass that through to all of us, so that anyone not carefully watching the headers might send an email there. Nice feature!

William Gallafent wrote:

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:54, ken wrote:

...

So it's okay for someone to put in a Reply-To of, say, ogre@homelandsecurity.gov and this listserver will diligently pass that through to all of us, so that anyone not carefully watching the headers might send an email there. Nice feature!

It's only OK for the originator of the message to do this, not just anybody!

And this makes a relevant difference how?

... but yes, if you don't look at the recipient fields of the message you're about to send before you send it, this sort of thing might happen.

Even worse, if you don't check the recipient fields, you might send a private reply to a poster to the list, rather than to the list itself ;)

You might be overlooking the gravity of this "feature". Do you really think we should expect that everyone will examine carefully the headers of every they send? E.g., Should the list server do nothing with this added to an email: Reply-To: suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com ... or any number of others anyone might dream up?

On Monday 14 August 2006 00:23, ken wrote:

John Andersen wrote:

...

On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

...

On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

...

On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:

...

In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.

Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)

That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.

Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.

Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?

...

...

Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.

Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that?

Doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous to have a rule which everyone is obligated to break by finding a work-around or by switching to a different (a so-called "proper") email client or by fixing it manually with every email sent? The rationale for this rule seems to be, "What server configuration can be set in order to inconvenience as many people as possible?"

Not to worry though. This topic will probably die off in twenty or thirty years. Maybe not... but probably.

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 20:47 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

...

Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.

Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that?

Needs more review of source. Perhaps its time you converted to Evolution. As I remember both use mcop if not someone probabily has a perl script to make the change. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/