[ On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 16:16:21 (-0700), Steve Lamb wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...
>
> Bullshit, Greg. RFC2369, 1998, List-Post, quite a few clients already
> support it and the one that doesn't that I know of (Thunderbird) it has been
> bugged so many times that it isn't funny.
Well, Steve, like I said, if you learned to read a little more carefully
you'd already know that the "list-post:" header value doesn't mean what
you currently seem to think it means. It simply supplies an address
which can be used to post to the list (perhaps via a moderator), or the
special value "NO", and FYI I do post to the list using the address
given in the list-post header. I and aothers also set the reply-to
header to be that address as well, which is what you should try doing
when you want replies to your postings to go back only to the list.
If you do try it then you'll find out "reply-to" really does almost
always have exactly the desired effect, except sometimes when I do what
I've done with this message and try to direct all replies to myself
privately -- seems lots of folks will easily notice that their reply
rant won't get a public airing unless they over-ride the automatically
provided recipient address. Nobody's CC'ed me on any earlier replies to
my postings since they were directed to reply to the list, but we've yet
to see if anyone will CC the list on any reply to this posting! ;-)
In fact nothing in RFC 2369 defines how users should address replies to
postings they receive from a managed mailing list. That's something
quite beyond its own self-stated scope, and as I've said something
that's already covered by the existing definition of "reply-to".
Furthermore if you read all of RFC 2369 carefully enough you'd have
come across this appendix which more or less says what I've been trying
to tell you about "reply-to":
A.8. The Dangers of Header Bloat
At what point are there just too many header fields? It really
varies on a list by list basis. On some lists, the majority of users
will never be aware of a field unless the client software provides
some alternative user interface to it (akin to the Reply-To field).
On others, the users will often see the header fields of messages and
would be able to recognize the function of the URLs contained within.
The flexibility afforded by the protocol described in this document
(in that the header fields may be individually implemented as deemed
appropriate) provides list administrators with sufficient 'room to
maneuver' to meet their individual needs.
And of course the vast majority of clients now do adhere to the standard
"reply-to" specification.
However the vast majority of clients don't know anything whatsoever
about any of the other things you've mumbled about, though the specific
clients you did mention do in fact know about and honour "reply-to".
In fact none of those proposals have _ever_ enjoyed any significant
level of acceptance at the IETF level. Indeed the e-mail experts in the
IETF have long been quite adamant that "reply-to" is more than
sufficient for all the needs folks like you have mumbled on about over
the years. Get with the program Steve. If anyone's living in the past
here, you are. Silly and serious attempts alike to replace "reply-to"
all died long ago.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
