[ On Monday, June 7, 2004 at 14:31:51 (-0700), Steve Lamb wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Re: exim-users vs. reply-to
>
> 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.
Sorry, but you're very wrong again.
First of I clearly did not say "I preach the rules."
As you full well know I do in fact practice exactly what I do preach and
I do not break my own rules.
However I do not, would not, and have never, blindly preached that all
published rules must be followed regardless.
It is in fact my choice to never allow a standards specification to
preach policies to me that has resulted in issues you've specifically
complained about in the past.
I.e. I practice exactly what I preach and I am very clear about when and
why I break the rules.
> >> 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.
How much more clear could it be than the above sentence?
You're still confused Steve. Go read the RFC(s) and other documentation
and guidelines about how to read and interpret RFCs.
> What part of "describes the method for posting TO THE LIST" escapes you?
What part of that very simple sentence could mislead you into believing
that it describes a policy and not the simple P.O.C. info that it really
is?!?!?!? I.e. the list-post header _only_ provides the information
necessary to answer the FAQ: "How do I post a message to the list?"
(i.e. keep in mind that one does not successfully interpret RFCs by
reading selected quotes from them, even when the quoted text is so plain
and apparently easy to interpret as that above -- RFCs must be taken as
a whole and in context with all other related RFCs)
> A UI issue, huh, cite other than "the IETF minutes" which encompasses just
> a few years?
Have you lost your access to google.com Steve?
There is no IETF-sanctioned definition or description of any
"mail-copies-to" header, and never was, and since all proposals for it
have been flatly turned down there likely never will be (though the IETF
is a remarkably fluid body -- join it and weigh in with your influcence
and vote if you care).
> > 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:
Let's stick to the basic specification, shall we?
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent.
Clearly when the sender uses a "reply-to" pointing to the list, as I,
Philip, and many others on this and other lists do, there's no "munging"
going on. We as the authors of the submitted messages are simply
indiating where we wish responses to be sent.
> 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".
Yes, so it was, but of course that different wording doesn't really
change the underlying specification any, and only barely qualifies it
given the examples oriinally provided in that same section of RFC 822.
> The exlcusion of any reference to
> mailing-lists was a direct result of the debate over the above verbage in 822.
Irrelevant. (and you're reading between the lines and being rather
presumptious about your interpretation of things you were not involved
in).
The use of a mailing list address has nothing whatsoever to do with this
other than that it is in fact a variant of this mailing list's posting
address which happens to be the target address where I'm currently
directing replies.
I believe the real reason for the change of wording was only that there
was no longer any need to provide examples of how/why reply-to might be
used since there's now adequate generic experience with e-mail systems
to alleviate that need. After all there is no change in meaning.
Note that the original example usage you quoted still implied that the
author would set the reply-to field to point to the address of the "text
message teleconferencing" group. The only controversy has been whether
it's OK for the list manager to choose to override the author's choice
and surely that's the sole decision of the list manager and/or the
democratic choice of the list members. I.e. there is no true
controversy and never was any. Policy choices can not be made by
language and protocol specifications (and will be ignored if they are).
Even if the list manager is a dictator the users of the forum still have
the choice of whether, and how, they participate.
(That said I would never vote in favour of having the list software
override the reply-to header, but I wouldn't (and have not) ever try to
argue that it should not or that doing so would voilate some sacrosanct
IETF-vetted rule since that would not be true.)
> 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.
Indeed. (not that there was ever any _real_ and valid case to the contrary)
It is the author's right to indicate where he or she wishes responses to
be sent, and that's the right I've been exercising, much to the apparent
dismay of at least one of the maintainers of the mailer used to host the
list.
> BTW, I've said before, and am saying again, that I do not want CCs. Don't
> CC me.
As I've said many times before: If you wish me not to CC you then you
need only set your Reply-To headers to point to where you do wish me to
send mail. That is the only appropriate way for you to make such a
request -- or at least the only way that stands any chance of succeeding
either with me or with the vast majority of any other users of RFC
[2]822 compatible MUAs.
It works very well for me! :-) (albiet only with some munging of my own
in the particular case of this specific list)
The only thing that doesn't work, and it's not the fault of the list nor
of any software or standards specification, is when I request that
replies _not_ be sent to the list, but instead be sent only to myself.
Seems most people (myself included, admittedly) have an extreme
reluctance to allow a formerly public discussion to be taken into
private, even when it wanders way off topic for the forum.
That said I did in fact attempt to reply in private to your initial post
to this thread (and to that of Andrew too), as your mailer logs will
confirm.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
