On Tue June 7 2005 01:13, Hector Santos wrote:
550 Return Path not verifiable. (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Please fix your buggy server.
Oh boy! There goes your modus operandi again! Here we go again with the 2
year old "Brucy" degrading every conversation ANYWAY or ANYWHERE when he
don't get his way! Brucy, are you capable of having an form of
non-confrontable conversion? Nah, that is impossible!
You are overreacting. There was a polite request to fix a problem at
your side.
I did this the last time we had this Reply-To-List/Reply-To debate to prove
the point that I don't what you to REPLY directly to me but to the LIST
instead.
Then use the Reply-To field which is provided for that purpose. It is
common courtesy to copy an author on a response unless that author has
clearly indicated otherwise. The Reply-To field is defined precisely
to provide such an indication.
Pretty much for the same reason you now finally saw the light and
are forcing a natural reply to the list by defining Reply-To: to the list
instead of the AUTHOR - YOU!
I've been using Reply-To consistently for years. It involves no
"forcing" of any kind.
1. mailing lists have been around since well before RFC 724 (1977).
And what kind of environment did we have in 1997?
ONLINE systems? Since when where you able to set a Reply-To in MUA in 1977?
Trivial to do at that time, since most UAs simply provided a template
and opened the user's preferred editor.
[much rambling and ad-hominem remarks elided]
Note
that RFC 724 also defines the semantics of the Reply-To field as an
author-supplied suggestion for responses and specifically mentions
"text-message teleconferencing", i.e. mailing lists.
Right, and to clearly point out what it says:
| More interesting
| is a case such as text-message teleconferencing in which an
| automatic distribution facility is provided and a user
| submitting an "entry" for distribution only needs to send
| their message to the mailbox(es) indicated in the "Reply-
| to:" field.
Which suggest that in a group environment, the natural reply is to go to the
suggested reply-to field.
No, it says that the author can suggest that replies be directed to a
list mailbox, and/or to other mailboxes. There is nothing anywhere
about a "natural reply".
[more rambling elided]
Clearly, you have no credentials in mail software designs. Absolutely no
brain for the matter. You are a paper pusher, doc pusher, technie end-user.
No more, no less and when you can't hack it, you resort to put downs and
ad-nausem facts that are clearly not even in question.
Your remarks, in addition to being untrue, are inappropriate. Please
read RFC 3934, to which you have been previously referred.