Greg A. Woods wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it does. It tells you how to post to the list. The ambiguity comes
from what one means by "post". You have, in the past, tried to make the
destiction that "post means new messages ONLY and not replies". That is not a
view shared by everyone else. That seems to be a common theme with you.
> 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.
Uh, no. The default best practice is to *NOT* CC unless requested.
> In fact nothing in RFC 2369 defines how users should address replies to
> postings they receive from a managed mailing list.
Case and point.
> 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":
Uhm, nope, doesn't prove anything. It mentions reply-to only in that most
people are unaware of the header unless their software knows of it. Doesn't
state "and reply-to is the only proper method of having messages posted only
to the list." Hint, "posted to the list"... List-Post. Engage that brain for
once and figure it out.
But speaking of reading, did you not read this part?
> 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.
D'ya think this "room to maneuver" might just be there to help guide
people to the point that "Post" isn't just "New messages"? Nahhhhh.
> 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".
Yet it is a sufficent number that over on the Debian lists where the
stated list policy is no CCs unless requested. The default reply is to the
list and to the list alone. Amazingly enough the incidence of off-list CCs
are low.
> 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.
Really? A quick Google on my part shows lots of IETF discussion about how
Mail-Copies-To isn't needed because copies should NOT be sent and if copies
wish to be sent one should ask for it in the body of the message. Not quite
the picture you're painting, Greg.
> 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.
Uh-huh, that's why it's still going on and succeeding.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
