This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ 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.
Oh geez, why do I even bother with you?
> First of I clearly did not say "I preach the rules."
Excuse me? Look at the quote up there, you know the one where you say,
"and my doing _exactly_ what I preach". You just said it! In the portion I
quoted! Why do you think I chose the word I did? *YOU USED IT!*
>> The List-Post field describes the method for posting to the list.
> How much more clear could it be than the above sentence?
Apparently not clear enough for you.
> You're still confused Steve. Go read the RFC(s) and other documentation
> and guidelines about how to read and interpret RFCs.
No, you're the confused one. Which part of that line do you not understand?
> 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?"
And in commonly accepted usage it is also the default method of replying
to the list UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY THE AUTHOR as the default is to
reply TO THE LIST.
>> 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?
I provided my cites. It is only common courtesy that you provide yours.
Have *YOU* lost access to google.com?
> 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.
And what bearind does that have on the debate over its proper usage in the
context of mailing lists you claim didn't happen or how that somehow refutes
the later abigious verbage in relation to mailing lists? I enver once said
you couldn't set it. I'm not the list owner, that is not for me to say. I
will recognize that it is a legal use.
> 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.
None of which refuted the aiblity for mailing lists to set it as per the
definition in the same RFC, hence, ambigious definition. What, you lose
access to m-w.com, too?
> Irrelevant. (and you're reading between the lines and being rather
> presumptious about your interpretation of things you were not involved
> in).
How so? I was rather involved in that debate for well over a decade.
> 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.
Uhm, no it didn't. Let's look at it AGAIN.
"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."
This clearly states that the automatic distribution service may place its
address in all messages submitted to it. It doesn't say "author", the only
mention here is the autmatic distribution services, aka list server.
> 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.
Bzt, there is no mention of the author in the above passage. That usage
was set out in the RFC. The debate was whether it was a portion of the RFC
that should be follow or ignored.
> 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.
Funny that, people here have been pointing that out to you and you seem to
be ignoring them. Follow the rules or get out. You stouting refuse to do either.
> 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.
Take it as a hint then. Exercise your right to protest by abstaining from
the group. Please.
>> 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.
As I've said before I have made my preference clear by not setting the
headers that many other lists, and mailers, adhere to. You have chosen to
ignore that preference. Last warning, do not CC me again. Another CC will be
considered harrassment.
> 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.
Oddly enough I participate in many other mailing lists and so far only on
this list, with you, do I have this problem. You and your misinformation are
the problem.
> 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.
Hypocrit and a liar, too.
-----
Return-path: <exim-users-admin@???>
Envelope-to: grey@???
Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:21:18 -0400
Received: from [195.92.249.251] (helo=exim-colo-01.whoc.theplanet.co.uk)
by dmiyu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1BWLBk-0002gC-MJ
for grey@???; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:21:18 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56664 helo=localhost.localdomain)
by exim-colo-01.whoc.theplanet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1BWLBC-0007SM-Gq; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:20:43 +0100
Received: from proven.weird.com ([204.92.254.15]:49745)
by exim-colo-01.whoc.theplanet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1BWL8f-0006wG-04
for exim-users@???; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:18:05 +0100
Received: from localhost (1804 bytes)
by proven.weird.com
via sendmail with STDIO
(sender: <woods>)
(ident <woods> using UNIX)
id <m1BWL8C-0002bfC@???>
for <exim-users@???>;
(dest:remote)(R=bind_hosts)(T=inet_zone_bind_smtp)
Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
(Smail-3.2.0.118-Pre 2004-May-30 #17 built 2004-May-31)
Message-Id: <m1BWL8C-0002bfC@???>
From: "Greg A. Woods" <woods@???>
To: Steve Lamb <grey@???>
Cc: Exim User's Mailing List <exim-users@???>
In-Reply-To: <40BFAE37.4020503@???>
References: <40BD1E06.7010407@???>
<51D09D8E-B4CB-11D8-83E7-0030656CF512@???>
<E1BVbeA-0007OW-Hp@???>
<DE343765-B4D1-11D8-83E7-0030656CF512@???>
<E1BVcQy-0008V5-Lb@???>
<m1BVvFT-0002bHC@???>
<40BF88A4.8050709@???>
<20040603175644.B14080@???>
<40BFAA67.1070102@???>
<40BFAE37.4020503@???>
X-Mailer: VM 7.18 under Emacs 21.3.1
Reply-To: Exim User's Mailing List <exim-users%exim.org@localhost>
Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada
Sender: exim-users-admin@???
Errors-To: exim-users-admin@???
X-BeenThere: exim-users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Exim] Delay 220 greeting to reduce spam?
-----
What do I see?
To: Steve Lamb <grey@???>
Cc: Exim User's Mailing List <exim-users@???>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, that's really taking it off list.
--
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 ]
--
