🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul16.165608.17970@utdallas.edu> shane@utdallas.edu (Shane Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.023706.32373@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>|>   Complain to the mailing list manager.  Complain to people who write
>|> broken software which does this.  The "Reply-To:" is supposed to be
>|> an optional header available to the author of the article.  The practice
>|> of adding a "Reply-To:" pointing back to the list is abusive.  It abuses
>|> the intentions of the "Reply-To:" header.  It abuses the readers who
>|> wish to reply privately to the author.  It abuses the readers of the
>|> mailing list who see many messages of no interest to anyone but the
>|> original author.

>                                                     I don't see your name on
>RFC 822, so what makes you so certain of the intentions of Reply-To?

  This is total bull.  Shame on you for pretending that this is a valid
argument.  Are you out there trying to close down all theological schools
because nobody on the faculty was a coauthor of the Bible?  Are you trying
to close down all our courts because none of the judges was a signatory to
the constitution?  You are using a totally improper appeal to authority.

  I don't believe my earlier comments referred to RFC822 at all.  I made no
appeal to the authority of 822.  The fact that you accuse me of it can only
hint at your guilty conscience, for you know damned well that this practice
is contrary to 822.

>This boils down to the BITNET camp vs. Internet camp again

  Where did I single out BITNET in my comments?  Or is your guilty conscience
showing again?

>            Nobody asked Internet users to use LISTSERV.

  Where did I mention LISTSERV.  If you want to interpret my remarks as
aimed at LISTSERV, you only do so because you know that LISTSERV is one
of the offending packages.

  Your provincialism is showing.  LISTSERV ain't the only kid on the block.
It isn't the only abusive mailing list software either.  I was criticizing
ALL software which follows this practice.  I was not singling out LISTSERV.

>       LISTSERV wasn't designed to gateway into news

  The practice us just as ABUSIVE when used in mailing lists as it is when
gatewayed to news.

>         I remain in the "new message" camp...otherwise all you would have is
>a glorified alias expander and alias list manager. Perhaps this is what some
>people want.

  Get it straight.  I am not talking RFC822 violation.  I am not talking
IETF rules abuse.  I frankly don't care if you consider it a new message
or a redistribution of an old message.  That has nothing to do with the
issue.  I am talking about PEOPLE ABUSE.  This is a human problem, not
an RFC problem.  Any software which is set up in such a way that it is
likely to result in private and personal comments being unintentionally
broadcast to the world is ABUSIVE.  Any email package which makes it
very difficult to reply to the original author is ABUSIVE.

  The "Reply-To:" header is permitted to have multiple addresses.  If the
software were to put both the list address and the author address on
the "Reply-To:" I would not be involved in this discussion.  That would
at least make the author address more readily available to the respondent.

>The contents of Reply-To are controlled by the poster;

  Bull!  Most posters do not know enough about the workings of email to
understand "Reply-To:".  Their normal expectation is that they send of
mail and the reply address is set automatically so that replies return
to them.