Mailer config [was Bind v. TinyDNS]

Leonard den Ottolander leonardjo at hetnet.nl
Wed Jan 7 18:44:06 UTC 2004


Hi Mark,

Sorry, I oversaw your post until now.

> Funny, how?

Just the fact that you usually reply inline and quote cleanly, which I 
appreciate. That's why I was a bit surprised. Note that I started writing 
the mail as a personal reply, but later decided it might be good to send it 
back to the list. Maybe I should have removed that reply when sending back 
to the list, since it might be misinterpreted.

> Only pedantic wannabe net-cops don't recognize that either form has its
> place.

Which is not what I want to be, although I do appreciate careful quoting 
(ie extensive stripping) and bottom posting.

By the way, I didn't really mind your top posting, just noticed the 
discrepancy between this off list reply and your on list reply behaviour.

> Copying private communication back to a list, on the
> other hand, is recognized as being quite rude.

I had considered that, that's why I apologized in advance. However, I 
didn't think the things you wrote to me were of such nature that they would 
embarrass you if I sent them back to the list. Please accept my apologies 
if I was wrong. No offense was intended and I did consider whether or not 
this action was appropriate. Maybe I misjudged.

> Lists that set Reply-To: are implementing a *hack*, pure and simple, that
> allows most primitive email clients with newbie users 'do the right thing'.
> 
> Reply-To: is *supposed* to be a private response address if, and only if,
> the From: address is not the desired contact address.

> The current Fedora list setup is a hack, and you will find that many (or
> most) mailing lists do *not* implement this hack, as it is *recognized* as
> being wrong.

> If the mailing list *truly* wished to enforce a protocol whereby it is
> expected that all members respond to all other members, via *only* the
> list, the *list* administrator should be forcing Mail-Followup-To: to
> be set.

Again, this might be the preferred setup, but it is hardly used at all (at 
least in the lists I am subscribed to, the only exception coincidentally 
being the bind list). Although using reply-to to reply to a mailing list 
might be a hack the BSD lists I am subscribed to that don't use it don't 
use mail-followup-to either, making it necessary for me to cut and paste 
the CC address when I want to reply back to the list. If you consider the 
list as a separate entity, a kind of chairman, then the reply-to approach 
is not such a bad solution (hack if you will). Only backdraw I see is that 
your reply-to address will be overwritten if you post with one set to the 
list. And I must say I believe subscribing to a mailing list and expecting 
it to reply to your reply-to address is an unusual setup.

All in all you haven't really explained why using reply-to is such a bad 
thing, apart from the fact that originally mail-followup-to was intended 
for this use.

> It isn't widely used primarily because people refuse to use it. For example,
> I point out yourself.

To be honest, I never heard of mail-followup-to before ;-) . It doesn't 
occur very often in the 100,000's of mails in my archive.

> > Lost battle.
> 
> Only to those who give up easily...

:-)

Bye,
Leonard.

--
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research





More information about the fedora-list mailing list