The attached is exactly the sort of spam-like cruft
that has been recently mentioned.
Why on Earth any sane person would set From to a non-
working address with no Reply-To field is beyond
comprehension. (Well, perhaps no *sane* person would...)
--- Begin Message ---
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at cr.yp.to.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<djb-internal/copies(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to>:
See http://cr.yp.to/docs/copies.html.
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Received: (qmail 3675 invoked by uid 1017); 29 Aug 2004 21:16:14 -0000
Delivered-To: djb(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to
Received: (qmail 3658 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2004 21:16:14 -0000
Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (207.172.4.62)
by stoneport.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 29 Aug 2004 21:16:14 -0000
X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by
smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication
X-Trace: KJpZPm5DYCm1ByDAhb/np3S6eFjC4PamalHpSpiyZLE=
Received: from wireless-12-40-110-107.bryantpark.org ([12.40.110.107]
helo=mail.blilly.com)
by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7)
id 1C1X1r-0003RC-00; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:15:59 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP
id i7TLFifL005303(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18
2004/05/15 07:23:45) ;
Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:15:44 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP
id i7TLFgxE005301(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26
22:21:33) ;
Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:15:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4132477D(_dot_)8070208(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:15:41 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Reply-To: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Organization: Bruce Lilly
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to>
CC: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: the most obvious failure in To-NoReply
References: <412D3E4B(_dot_)8050205(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
<iluisb670bb(_dot_)fsf(_at_)latte(_dot_)josefsson(_dot_)org>
<20040826164348(_dot_)6aceece8(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
<ilullg14jxe(_dot_)fsf(_at_)latte(_dot_)josefsson(_dot_)org>
<412E6763(_dot_)50401(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
<iluwtzl33bn(_dot_)fsf(_at_)latte(_dot_)josefsson(_dot_)org>
<412E72DB(_dot_)7000106(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
<20040829205157(_dot_)86316(_dot_)qmail(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to>
In-Reply-To: <20040829205157(_dot_)86316(_dot_)qmail(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Keith Moore writes:
NR has no way to specify situations where "reply to all" is not sent
to a superset of the recipients who would be sent if "reply to author"
were used instead.
Then NR is broken.
Not necessarily so. Kindly explain under precisely which circumstance(s)
"reply-to-all" should *not* be a superset of "reply-to-author" and why.
When I send a message to ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, I do _not_
want followups to be sent to the original reply address. That's why my
message says Mail-Followup-To: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_)
There is no "mail-followup-to" -- it is defined in no RFC and in
no Internet draft. If one wants replies sent to a specific list
of addresses, that is precisely what the standard Reply-To header
field is for.
as far as I can tell, this is a plus for NR.
Then you are fundamentally confused about what mail users want to do.
Anybody who apparently thinks that mail users wish to receive strident
spam-like "you didn't honor "mail-followup-to'" cruft is fundamentally
confused about what mail users want and don't want.
--- End Message ---