ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member messages to lists]

2004-10-18 15:27:38


----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
Cc: <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>; <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member
messages to lists]


First, please don't send duplicate messages to me.

I'm not.  I'm sending a reply to you, and cc'ing the list.

And you honestly do not see the significance of this? and how it relates to
the
convoluted conflictive philosophical "opinion" of expected behavior?  No
need to
answer this.

This is appropriate because both are interested parties.

I'm already part of the list. I am already going to get a copy of the
message. I don't need a direct private offlist email.

I'm replying to the list. I don't need or want to send directly to you.
Yet, you were able to be a part of the communication.  There is no need to
send me a 2nd copy - its a waste.

If it happens
that this results in multiple copies arriving at your inbox that's
your problem,  not mine -

Which explains why there isn't going to be solution with this ever
persistent (no matter what it is) attitude of yours. Yet, the irony is you
say this but in the same breath you say.......

at least until we have some universally
accepted way of (a) indicating to other recipients that you don't
want to be cc'ed on replies and (b) indicating to other recipients
that you're implicitly getting replies even though you are not
explicitly being sent a reply.

So because this isn't available, its "my problem?"   No, the problem begins
because you needed to "REPLY to ALL" to get the list address. You didn't
manually add all these addresses to your Reply Dialog.  In this effort, it
includes all the other addresses which for some odd reason, you decided not
to clean it up.

I don't need to get two
copies.  That's the problem.  In order to send to the LIST, you have to
naturally SEND to ALL.

False.  I can specify the list explicitly, and sometimes do.

Yet, you did not here. Why?  List participants don't need second direct
offlist copies

You even SENT two copies to yourself!

nope.  I sent one copy to my inbox, and another to my personal
archive of the mailing list.  They are not the same.

Your two addresses shown above they are the same. Anyway. It is a mute
point.

Second, there is nothing wrong with our list server.   Once you post to
the
LIST, the LIST MANAGER takes responsibility for any distribution at the
point.  The proof can be viewed as simply this:

    At the distribution, the 821.MailFrom is NO Longer the original
    poster

who said anything about MAIL FROM?

I am!

we're talking message headers here.
the [2]822/MIME protocol is between users and their agents.  transport
has nothing to do with it.

It relates to the concept that the email output generation of a LIST
Distribution is not the same as would be the 1 to 1 email direct transport
where the MAIL FROM is persistent.   It is NOT persistent in a List
Distribution. It is changed once the responsible domain takes over.   Hence
this means the list manager has a new responsibility to provide the best
"expectations" for the end-user agent reading the email list message, not as
a pure direct/private 1 to 1 email message.

Please understand what is being said here first before injected more
stubborn responses that lead no where.

---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>