On Fri October 15 2004 15:36, Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
On Tue October 12 2004 23:04, Hector Santos wrote:
"Reply to Sender"
You are in danger of confusing yourself (or of being
confused by non-standard terminology used by your
MUA); you probably mean "Author(s)", though it is
conceivable that some respondents might wish to
communicate with a message sender (as indicated
by the Sender field if present, or via the envelope
sender).
No, I think I am pretty verse of the MUA "standard practice" [...]
A response to the person or people identified in a message's
From field is a response to the author(s), not necessarily the
"sender". See RFC 2822 section 3.6.2.
I mean, we are trying to get the MUA to do something it was simply
not trained to do.
MUAs aren't "trained".
"Reply to All"
and how these two MUA "standard" reply actions are handled or "prepared"
by
list handlers.
They aren't; responses are generated by a respondent,
usually with an MUA -- the mailing list expander is not
involved in that process.
If sent to the list, it list server has a big role here.
From the moment a respondent decides to prepare a response and
until he sends it, there is no role for any list expander; it is simply
not involved.
I explained how
the list server used here seems to not do this, but our list server will
make sure that the proper Reply-To: is used for the distribution. There is
nothing technically wrong with that
It *is* wrong for anybody other than a message author to set
a Reply-To field. See RFC 2822 section 3.6.2.
Incorrect. In fact mailing lists predate email, initial.....
and I am sure there was a time where engraved flintstones were used to
communicate. :-) This doesn't change the fact the current RFC-based mail
readers are what they are today based on an EMAIL and NEWS design. Not
MailIng List concepts. Is this correct or not?
Not. Reread what I wrote in its entirety. Current and past RFCs have
always taken mailing lists into account.
....SMTP itself has explicit provisions for
mailing lists.
But the MUA does not.
*Which* MUA? That's an implementation issue.
In one case (the list server used here), the "Reply to Sender" will go
to
the author. In our list server, the "Reply to Sender" goes to the list
address.
There's that problem with use of non-standard terminology.
I beg to differ.
Then you still don't understand the difference between "sender"
and "author".
I guess the difference is that we make sure the "Reply-To:" address is
properly set in the distribution.
Is that more correct?
No. Its use is reserved for the author to indicate where he
wishes responses to be sent.
Hhmmm, sure, for creating the reply address in the new/response message.
In *all* messages.
a) Does a MUA need to detect a Mailing List Message as oppose to a just
a
pure email message?
No, and in general it cannot do so.
Why? Please give a reason. I mean, I would love to put my trust in your
expertise. :-) But I need a reason why this will not "help" in addressing
the issue?
Please read the past discussion, where this has been addressed in detail.
Briefly, there is no certain way for an MUA to determine that a mailing
list is involved.
I think most List Servers do add some information to pick up on this. I
think List-Address: is a good candidate.
There is no such field.
Probably not; there should be a function to respond to where
the author has requested responses to go. Generally that is
labeled simply "Reply" in UAs.
Yes, but for a direct 1 to 1 EMAIL concept only.
No, for general use.