This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, June 4, 2004 at 13:55:15 (-0700), Steve Lamb wrote: ]
> You can call it what you will (and it won't bother me :-) but I do have
> the same right to participate in this forum as you or any other Exim
> user and/or maintainer.
Yet you're widely considered just another troll. Obviously "taking a
hint" is lost on you, eh?
> Someone's got to keep everyone on the straight & narrow standards path
> around here! ;-)
You would do better if you yourself adhered to them in their entirety and
also didn't break others ona whim. Unfortunately your behavior shows you as a
complete hypocrit at best.
> Perhaps you should ask <exim-users-admin@???> about the specific
> reasons for _my_ use of that addressing form in that situtation....
> Some folks don't have to jump through such hoops, but I'm not one of
> them.
Actually what you should be asking yourself is why you believe yourself so
important as to flaunt those restrictions in the first place. Don't like
them, don't participate. Given your reception here I doubt anyone would truly
miss you.
> I'm only following your (MUA's) own instructions.
Really? Then tell your steaming pile to follow the lists directions:
List-Post: <
mailto:exim-users@exim.org>
> You can ask me to reply to the list too if you like and I
> (or rather my MUA) would certainly honour your request.
No, that's what the List-Post header is for and, by golly, it's there. If
I had wanted a CC I would have set Mail-Copies-To. I haven't so I don't.
You know so far for claiming to be someone who is keeping others on the
straight and narrow when it comes to standards you're woefully ignorant and
incomprehensibly full of yourself.
> That's what the reply-to header was invented for in the first place,
> after all.
Actually, debate on reply-to as it relates to mailing lists have pretty
much raged since 822 was introduced because of its ambiguious wording. In
modern times reply-to is pretty much relegated to where to reply to the
INDIVIDUAL and not to the list. As I've pointed out list-post and
mail-copies-to cover the other cases.
> Some people like to receive
> multiple copies -- I don't, but I have no idea even yet what your true
> preferences are (you don't seem to mind so long as you get to CC the
> sender back in return, but that's kinda weird so I don't want to jump to
> conclusions).
I've made my preference clear. I have not set the mail-copies-to header.
Furthermore I have not CC'd the sender back. If you'd look even closer I'm
not even using your lame-ass reply-to. And if you were really observant you'd
note that I am using a broken mail client which does not honor list-post and
yet I am perfectly capable of trimming my headers to just the mailing list.
Whoops, I just realized you're not using GNUS. Is VM so broken that it is
ignorant of these headers? More importantly why is "Mr. RFC, STANDARDS
BOY!!!" ignorant of them? Even better, why is it we had this conversation a
few months ago and you've seemingly forgotten it?
>>so you instead, cook up a bogus reply-to which uses a hack which is
>>often turned off in most Exim installs? That about it?
> "Bogus"? (not -- just uncommon)
Yes, uncommon, little used, often shut off as it is more of a security
risk than an actual useful or used feature.
> Do I care if it's turned off in most Exim installs? (no -- that's not
> the point, see above)
Actually, it is the point. By setting reply-to to an address which will
most likely /not/ work in your ignorant flailing around standards you're not
aware of you're making it harder for people to actually reply in any
meaningful capacity.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[ signature.asc of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]
--
