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