Re: Bogus reply-to
From: Monique Y. Mudama (spam_at_bounceswoosh.org)
Date: 08/09/04
- Previous message: s. keeling: "Re: Loading kernel modules at startup"
- In reply to: Tim Connors: "Re: Bogus reply-to"
- Next in thread: Tim Connors: "Re: Bogus reply-to"
- Reply: Tim Connors: "Re: Bogus reply-to"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:48:43 -0600
On 2004-08-08, Tim Connors penned:
> "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004
> 10:05:12 -0600:
>
> I suggest that gmane is the wrong tool for the job - I;ve heard plenty
> of people say it sucks for mailing lists, and this appears to be
> another case (actually, google seem to be really doing a good job at
> making sucky UIs and not implementing proper protocols - witness
> google groups 2 and how it doesn't set and preserve "References:"; but
> I digress). But anyway...
It sure sounds like you're claiming that the fact that gmane delivers
messages through the news protocol rather than email is a flaw, rather
than the whole point. It's not a flaw; it's how I want things to work.
The flaw is in sending dupes when I only want one, even though I
specifically request no copies in my headers. I used to have a request
in my signature not to cc me; not only did it not work, but I got a
bunch of people telling me that this was unnecessary, as these miracle
headers would fix things right up. So I moved to the headers, and they
didn't work.
> I too use the wrong tool for the job; I am reading this through
> news://linux.debian.user (newsgroups are so much more convenient that
> mailing lists, particularly since I already read a dozen newsfroups),
> which preserves every header, so I can munge them back into something
> sensible, *except* it doesn't preserve Reply-To (for your posts, it
> sets "Mail-Copies-To: never", which I use in my script to detect
> people not wanting reply-tos).
Um, no, *I* set mail-copies-to: never. Actually, I guess I'm not sure
what all happens in processing from gmane to mailing list to that
newsgroup, but I would think that this setting is somehow related to my
original headers?
> Possibly this is why people reply-to you directly.
Because I ask them not to in my headers? Please explain, cuz I'm not
following you.
> I personally think that policies on mailing lists shouldn't dictate
> things like reply-to (not that this one has been made publicly known
> other than through your rants), because some people prefer to get a
> reply-to (me, for example - reply-to means I can see any responses to
> me straight away without having to wait for the mailing list to do its
> thing), and I think it clutters the list to say "please reply to me".
> Let your mailer do its thing (set your own reply-to[1] as necessary,
> as you do), and hope that everyone respects it.
It's that whole "hope" aspect I have trouble with. My faith has a
terrible batting average in this regard.
I agree that it clutters the list to request replies, but what are we
supposed to do when people don't respect headers?
> There's also the issue that differnt mailing lists adopting different
> practices means that no-one can actually keep track of which practice
> is used where, so they just use the one that is most convenient for
> them.
Of course everyone can keep track of these, or get their mail client to
track it for them! It's just that some people find it more convenient
to waste other people's time than to follow the rules.
> [1] Even if Reply-To is considered harmful
> (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html), and causes some
> mailers to drop the mailing list off the list of CCs, and will end up
> replying only to your single bogus address.
Your link seems to talk exclusively about lists admins setting reply-to
for the whole list, which isn't the case with my emails:
"The Reply-To header was not invented on a whim. It is there for the
sender of a mail message to use. If you stomp on this header, you can
lose important information."
Is the behavior of dropping the mailing list part of the spec? I guess
I assumed that a reply-to should only be used, you know, when you're
actually replying. Was I wrong?
I would love to not set this reply-to and somehow get no copies of d-u
conversation in my inbox. It just doesn't seem to be possible.
Actually, I'm not yet sure that the reply-to will stop folks from cc'ing
me, but it's something to try.
I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm just trying to minimize the amount of
email I get, and when doing things the right way doesn't get the job
done, I start looking for wrong ways that at least give me peace of
mind.
-- monique Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: s. keeling: "Re: Loading kernel modules at startup"
- In reply to: Tim Connors: "Re: Bogus reply-to"
- Next in thread: Tim Connors: "Re: Bogus reply-to"
- Reply: Tim Connors: "Re: Bogus reply-to"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
