On Fri October 15 2004 21:12, Hector Santos wrote:
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?
Because you keep writing "reply to sender" when you are
discussing "reply to author", indicating that you're confused
about the difference between "sender" and "author", and
therefore ignorant of how MUAs function.
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.
Writing of MUAs as being "trained" demonstrates at best a
very odd way of thinking about MUAs; certainly not to be
expected from a software engineer or developer or anybody
"even close to understanding the concept" of MUAs.
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.
But that has nothing to do with a respondent preparing and
sending a response; there is no involvement of a list expander
in that process.
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.
You are wrong on all counts.
In fact RFC 822 has no special "author request" phrase.
First, I referred you to a specific section of RFC 2822 (not 822),
which says in part:
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent.
Second, RFC 822 says:
Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and
serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path"
field is used to identify a path back to the origina-
tor.
and
The "Reply-To" field is added by the message
originator and is intended to direct replies.
and that is the same concept, in slightly different wording.
The Reply-To: is a
NETWORK control header
First, it is a message header field, not a "NETWORK control header".
that allows transport system (821, Fidonet) to work
and helps From: to work as a display name
Second, it has nothing to do with transport under any circumstances.
Third, it does nothing to affect the optional display name part of
a From field.
The list expander can indeed
set the Reply-To: as that is where ALL list responses should go to.
No. Reply-To is defined as an originator field (RFC 822:
4.4. ORIGINATOR FIELDS
The standard allows only a subset of the combinations possi-
ble with the From, Sender, Reply-To, Resent-From, Resent-Sender,
and Resent-Reply-To fields.
[...]
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical
uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first
case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine
address. In the second case, an author may wish additional
persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A
somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-
To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference;
then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to
guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
own.
and RFC 2822:
3.6.2. Originator fields
The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the
sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field.
[...]
The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent.
); it is supposed to be set by the author/originator, not by a list
expander. Specific fields for use by list expanders are defined in RFCs
2369 and 2919. Note that in the quoted text above, RFC 822
specifically addressed use of Reply-To by author/originators when
submitting messages *to* mailing list expanders ("'text message
teleconferencing' groups"), as did its predecessors.
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.
The Reply-To field indicates where the author suggests that
responses should be sent, for a variety of purposes including
mailing lists. The Reply-To field does *not* indicate "the original
author reply address"; the author's mailbox is indicated by the
message header "From" field, which may be used by a respondent
for direct responses to the author if that's where a respondent
wishes to send his response, whether or not the original message
was sent via a list expander.
Yet, there is a mailing list/email/MUA conflict, you wish to continue to
suggest there isn't.
The only "conflict" is with specific UA implementations, viz. those
that fail to display the Reply-To field and/or fail to provide a way
for an author to set the Reply-To field on messages in accordance
with the "three typical uses" specified in RFC 822 (and other uses).
Bruce, you reread what I was saying.
It would help if you could put together a few coherent sentences...
But the MUA does not.
*Which* MUA? That's an implementation issue.
It is an implementation issues across the board.
No. There are in fact UAs -- *many* UAs -- that display all relevant
originator fields and which provide mechanisms by which an author
can set the Reply-To field on outgoing messages. Several, including
the one I'm using right now, preset Reply-To in accordance with
some configuration, so that it is automatically set appropriately for
most messages sent to a mailing list (and can be easily edited when
necessary).
If you follow this LIST format, your natural REPLY will not be to the LIST
No, as RFC 822 has indicated, if an author sets the Reply-To field to
point to the mailbox associated with the list expander service on
messages sent to a list for which he expects responses to be likewise
sent to that list, a typical reply (as opposed to specific action taken
by a respondent to respond to some other place) will in fact be sent
to the list expander; that is the entire point of that intended use of
the Reply-To field.
You need to "Reply to All"
Only if the author -- ignoring RFC 822 and its predecessors -- has
failed to set the Reply-To field appropriately, or if the respondent
wishes to do something very much out of the ordinary.
and for
the layman, he has to make a guess if he doing this right.
If he intends to send a response to where he believes the author
would like responses to be sent, and that author has not explicitly
indicated such a preference by setting a Reply-To field -- or if he
knows or believes that some misconfigured list expander has
overwritten the author's Reply-To field -- then yes, he is reduced
to having to make a guess. Common courtesy indicates that
authors should therefore explicitly indicate preferences using
the standard Reply-To field which is provided specifically for that
purpose, and that under no circumstances should a list expander
overwrite that field; so as to avoid forcing respondents to hazard
guesses.
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 have no way of knowing what a respondent thought. I have rarely
received private responses to list messages (because I *do* set Reply-To
in accordance with RFC 822), and on the occasions when I do receive
private responses it is generally because the respondent intentionally
wished to send an off-list message (and they usually say so explicitly
in those private responses). And I would add that with Reply-To set
by the author to point to the list mailbox, it would require a great
deal of confusion for a respondent to send a private response while
thinking it was going to the list; said respondent would have to use a
specific "reply to author" function or manually edit the recipient list in
order to do so, as the protocol for a generic "reply" is to use the Reply-To
field.
I see it quite often
Then that's probably because *you* failed to set the Reply-To field
to point to the list (as you have repeatedly failed to do when sending
to this list).
Then you still don't understand the difference between "sender"
and "author".
if you honestly believe that, and I know you don't
You know no such thing. If you mean author, then write "author";
if you write "sender" when you evidently mean author, it is hardly
surprising to find that others believe that you fail to understand the
difference.
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!
No, see RFC 822 text quoted above regarding mailing lists ("'text message
teleconference' groups").
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.
It can't be done. While there are specific (RFC 2369, 2919) message
header fields that a mailing list expander MAY insert, and while a
mailing list expander SHOULD appropriately set the envelope sender
address to the mailing list maintainer's mailbox, there is no guaranteed
way that any MUA can always identify all list messages. That is because
the mailing list-specific fields are optional and because a mailing list
mailbox is indistinguishable from an individual mailbox. Mailing list-
specific fields cannot be made mandatory under IETF rules, because
imposing requirements is reserved for cases where it is necessary
to ensure interoperation and to avoid network damage (such as
severe congestion caused by retransmissions); since the list-specific
fields play no role in protocol but are merely informative, there is no
way that omitting any or all of those fields can lead to such problems.
Moreover, there is no need for an MUA to determine that a list is
involved; an author is supposed to set the Reply-To field to indicate
where responses should go if that is somewhere other than directly
to him (the author), and a respondent only needs to be able to see
the author's recommendation and to determine whether he (the
respondent) wishes to comply with that recommendation or to send
his response elsewhere. That applies for *all* messages, mailing list
or otherwise.
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!
No need. It would serve no useful purpose; it could not be mandatory.
There are already informative optional fields for mailing list use. There
is already a standard field that an author can use to indicate a
suggested set of mailboxes for responses to a message, whether or
not that message may have passed through a list expander en route
to its recipient(s).
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.
You are wrong. Again I direct your attention to the specific text in
RFC 822 that addresses use of Reply-To with mailing lists.
Yet, we have
this debate going on and you act like the MUA can solve this problem on its
own.
No, I've clearly stated that the author of each message is responsible
for setting the Reply-To field appropriately. I have not said anything
remotely like "the MUA can solve this problem on its own"; in fact I
have pointed out that there is very little that an MUA *can* do -- at
best it can assist the author in setting Reply-To, and it should display
relevant information to message recipients.
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################