This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> 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. :-)
Hardly. You do not practice what you preach in that you break the rules
when it suits your needs.
> 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.
And I'm willing to bet there's a fine reason for it, too.
> (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)
Then why continue to plague the list with your presence if you dislike it so?
>> Really? Then tell your steaming pile to follow the lists directions:
>>
>>List-Post: <mailto:exim-users@exim.org>
> RTFRFC Steve.
I have. Have you?
3.4. List-Post
The List-Post field describes the method for posting to the list.
This is typically the address of the list, but MAY be a moderator, or
potentially some other form of submission. For the special case of a
list that does not allow posting (e.g., an announcements list), the
List-Post field may contain the special value "NO".
What part of "describes the method for posting TO THE LIST" escapes you?
>> 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.
Do the same youself.
> 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.)
A UI issue, huh, cite other than "the IETF minutes" which encompasses just
a few years?
> 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".
Uh, come again? From the description of Reply-To:
"A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services:
include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" field of all messages
submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to
conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission
of their own."
Clearly states that the automatic distribution service, MAILING-LIST, can
include the address of that service of all messages submitted to it. Of
course most people considered this munging. That does not alter the fact that
RFC822 was ambiguious when it came to Reply-To in relation to mailing lists
and that there was debate over that very issue for years.
Note that this was changed in 2822 to read "When the "Reply-To:" field is
present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message
suggests that replies be sent". The exlcusion of any reference to
mailing-lists was a direct result of the debate over the above verbage in 822.
It closed the case with finality as now reply-to is solely in the preview of
the author and not any agent beween the author and final recipient.
Of course this is possible because List-Post was defined to take over the
role of where submissions to the list are to go. It split the two roles that
had been assigned to reply-to by 822 into to separate headers.
> I'm not trying to make it easy.
In other words, you're trying intentionally to be an ass?
BTW, I've said before, and am saying again, that I do not want CCs. Don't
CC me.
> I'm trying to make a point. Making it easy would make it much harder
> for most folks to get the point.
No, we get the point, you're an ignorant, hypocritical troll who's trying
rather sucessfully to be an ass. Could you please go away now that you've
made your point?
> 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.
Quite the contrary, you piss off other people by making a fool of yourself
in a public forum by not adhering to the same standards you claim to know
intimately.
--
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 ]
--
