[ On Friday, June 4, 2004 at 15:03:31 (-0700), Steve Lamb wrote: ]
> Subject: [Exim] Re: exim-users vs. reply-to
>
> 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.
Hmmm.... well since my "straight and narrow" path, an my doing
_exactly_ what I preach, is clearly far more strict than your own, I
guess I can't expect too much from you. :-)
(though once upon a time I did expect, or at least hope, you could be
more civil in a public forum)
> Actually what you should be asking yourself is why you believe yourself so
> important as to flaunt those restrictions in the first place.
It wouldn't be so bad if I were the only one(?) who was not allowed to
do this very normal and very standard thing. Perhaps you should be a
little more careful in your analysis of the facts next time.
(of course no amount of rationalization or even pleading had helped
clean up the subject-line munging by the list either, so I don't expect
the list maintainers to follow rational behaviour any more)
> Really? Then tell your steaming pile to follow the lists directions:
>
> List-Post: <mailto:exim-users@exim.org>
RTFRFC Steve.
> No, that's what the List-Post header is for and, by golly, it's there.
No the list-post header is not for that purpose _at_all_. RTFRFC Steve.
> If
> I had wanted a CC I would have set Mail-Copies-To. I haven't so I don't.
Which RFC is that in again? Oh, it's not in any RFC? Hmm... I wonder
why not.... (Hint: search the IETF meeting minutes. This abomination
was dismissed as a UI issue once and for all a long time ago.)
> Actually, debate on reply-to as it relates to mailing lists have pretty
> much raged since 822 was introduced because of its ambiguious wording.
Actually the real wording about reply-to in RFC 822 is not very
ambiguous at all -- however it doesn't say what some folks wanted it to
say, thus the true cause of the so-called "debate".
> Actually, it is the point.
No, it is, and was, not 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.
I'm not trying to make it easy.
I'm trying to make a point. Making it easy would make it much harder
for most folks to get the point.
People who really want to reply will know what to do and won't have to
think twice about it.
Unlike yourself though I don't get steamed and make a fool of myself on
the public forum when someone fails to honour my automatic reply-to
request.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
