----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
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.
Why are you indicating the obvious?
I mean, we are trying to get the MUA to do something it was simply
not trained to do.
MUAs aren't "trained".
Bruce, does this suggest not a software engineer or developer or even close
to understanding the concept? If so, I won't hold that against you thought.
Do you have more significant comments other than these no-win responses?
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.
Again, once that message hits the LIST manager, it is going to be "handled"
how it sees fit whether you like it or not! The list expander has a vital
role in it.
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.
Not quite. Thats an interpretation for 2822 from an END-USER such as
yourself with no experience in mail gateway, distribution product design.
In fact RFC 822 has no special "author request" phrase. The Reply-To: is a
NETWORK control header that allows transport system (821, Fidonet) to work
and helps From: to work as a display name In addition, once again, we are
talking about a reply address is the LIST address. You are muddying the
concept of EMAIL and GROUPWARE distribution. The list expander can indeed
set the Reply-To: as that is where ALL list responses should go to. Not
Direct. List Responses. If you want to go outside that automated list
response, then you use something else. But to keep the Reply-TO: as the
original author reply address as it was still a pure EMAIL 1 to 1 transport
concept, then maybe this it explains why this debate exist.
Not. Reread what I wrote in its entirety. Current and past RFCs have
always taken mailing lists into account.
Yet, there is a mailing list/email/MUA conflict, you wish to continue to
suggest there isn't. Bruce, you reread what I was saying.
But the MUA does not.
*Which* MUA? That's an implementation issue.
It is an implementation issues across the board. Again, why does this debate
exist?
If you follow this LIST format, your natural REPLY will not be to the LIST
which I will venture to believe the majority of people will believe should
not be the _default_ expected behavior. You need to "Reply to All" and for
the layman, he has to make a guess if he doing this right. How many times
have you received a private response from someone on a list where in
reality, he thought it was going to the list? I see it quite often until he
finally understands whats going on and how to use his MUA for one or more
different list systems. Worst, you see much redundant because he takes the
fields that are set and got mail going all over the place. So which is it?
I beg to differ.
Then you still don't understand the difference between "sender"
and "author".
if you honestly believe that, and I know you don't, then I should be
stopping right here. But I'm having fun with you. <g> You are no match
for me bud! But hey, I can play dumb and try to work with people to solve a
problem. Can you?
Hhmmm, sure, for creating the reply address in the new/response message.
In *all* messages.
Oh, we can be here all day Bruce. It for EMAIL 1 to 1 DIRECT only! Sorry,
your MUA is seeing this message as a EMAIL and nothing else. If you want to
make it for a LIST, you have to do a few extra steps. Say it ain't so Joe?
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.
All I see you and one other that I won't mention is constantly knocking
everything and anyone who have anything to say.
Briefly, there is no certain way for an MUA to determine that a mailing
list is involved.
And this is what we are trying to address. Yet you don't even want to go
there. Hmmm, incidentally, why do we need your permission again?
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.
Then INVENT it god-damn it!
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.
No, for 1 to 1 private email only! sorry you can't see that. Yet, we have
this debate going on and you act like the MUA can solve this problem on its
own. Oye Vey! It can't. If it was so, it would of been done by know.
Sure, you can make it smarter, but not by default and there will need to be
some some of standardization in the list server area to make it work better.
This was a mistake to get involved here. I must be bored!
ciao
--
Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com