ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Understanding response protocols

2004-10-13 19:12:40

In <416C7F13(_dot_)8050202(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <416B2D24(_dot_)5080009(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

Which is why I said "The only place where it *can* be known ...". For
sure, if the author does not know, then there is even less chance that
subsequent mailing list expanders would know

No, it is NOT repeated above, since you have snipped it.

It's *still* there.

You can read what's written inside the "..."?

Now, supposing some author wants to raise a matter which is likely to be
relevant to both ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org and 
IMAP(_at_)CAC(_dot_)Washington(_dot_)EDU(_dot_) ...


He can indicate that desire trivially:
Reply-To: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, 
IMAP(_at_)CAC(_dot_)Washington(_dot_)EDU


Exactly so (or use MFT). So why have you been denying my claim that the
mailing list expanders cannot do it without assistance from the author?

That was not your claim; your claim was "The only place where it is
known that a crosspost is occurring is at the original sender.
Therefore, any information to inform subsequent agents that
crossposting is afoot HAS to be placed in the message by the original
sender."  Ignoring the fallacious first statement,

Why is that falacious? You failed to answer my question about how the
expander for the mailing list 'foo' could also know that the recipient
'bar' was another mailing list. OK, you can s/is known/can be known/, as I
have already explained.

the second
statement is clearly not about an indication of desire or
recommendation regarding responses -- Reply-To (and the non-
standard MFT, at least according to some claims) indicates a
recommendation for responses; it does not "inform subsequent
agents that crossposting is afoot".

Yes it does, because they (in particular the recipients' agents) can now
see that replies are requested to be sent to both lists.


The solution to the "problem" of an author indicating his recommendation
for responses is trivially solved.  You have yet to explain what "problem"
requires determining if/when list expansion takes place.


Because you want replies to go to all the lists crossposted to, without
duplicate personal copies going to people who are already subscribed to
one of those lists.

Authors do not always want responses to go to all lists in all
cases where multiple lists are involved (in some cases one list
is notified of discussion taking place on a different list, with
responses directed to the discussion list), sometimes an author
may want personal responses rather than list responses, and as
you have been informed quite clearly, not all persons wish to
be excluded from the list of recipients receiving responses
whether or not some list is involved.

Yes, of course there are all sorts of exceptions, but it is apparent that
many, if not most, authors want replies to go to the list in normal
circumstances. If, for particular reasons, they don't want that then they
can set Reply-To/MFT somewhere else.

It is your fixation with the exceptional and unusual cases that is
blinding you to the need to get the commonly occurring cases working
smoothly with minimal intervention by users at either end.

If an author makes a recommendation for responses to go to "foo"
and to "bar", and expansion of "foo" includes "bar" or vice
versa, or "foo" and "bar" when expanded both include "baz",
then duplicates may still be received somewhere.

Again, it is your fixation with the exceptional cases that is showing
through. You seem to prefer that is is better for a system to never get it
right is there is a 0.001% chance that it will sometimes get it wrong.


2. An appropriate question is how response recommendations
  can be communicated under various scenarios.

Regarding the last point, I have detailed how standard fields
expressing standard semantics with standard syntax can be used
under various scenarios identified during this discussion

You have signally failed to convince anyone, even Keith, that the Reply-To
field provides an acceptable solution in this matter.

 to
communicate such response recommendations, how such usage works
both with common "plain" reply functions as well as with
frequently-used "reply-to-all" functions, and how failure of an
author to communicate such recommendations when lists are
involved leads to a number of problems for authors, recipients,
and for third parties.  It works for various list scenarios
(with some limitations for a specific identified unusual
situation), for interpersonal communications not involving
lists, for communications involving both lists and individuals,
for delegation, for authors who want individual responses to
their messages, for authors who want individual copies in addition
to list responses, and for authors who want responses to go only
to a list.  It requires no changes to MUAs, MTAs, or established
protocols.

You have made no substantive comment on that.  You have made
no proposal which would address the specific identified issue
of communicating response preferences.

I have made no proposal because I see an acceptable proposal already oj
the table.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, 
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5