🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul16.180834.30172@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul16.165608.17970@utdallas.edu> shane@utdallas.edu (Shane Davis) writes:
|> 
|> >                                                     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.

Granted, a bit of a useless shot. But not totally invalid...why is your
judgement of the intent any more accurate than mine or Eric Thomas's?

|> 
|>   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.

Guilty conscience for what? I can't say as I've ever felt guilty for running a
LISTSERV. I'm not forcing anyone to use it.

822 says twice:

	"The "Reply-To" field is added  by  the  originator  and
	 serves  to  direct  replies."

Setting this header to point to a list is only contrary to 822 if you do not
consider the mail message as one generated by the list exploder, but
rather by the person doing the posting. If the exploder is generating a new
message, copying the content of the old one, then the exploder IS the
originator and is allowed to direct replies anywhere. "Originator" is not
explicitly defined in 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?

What is your problem? This was just commentary, not meant as a personal flame.
You've got nerve making this kind of comment (twice!) after admonishing me
for meaningless, Usenet-style attacks.

|> 
|> >            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.

It is one of the packages which does what you find offensive, yes.

|> 
|>   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.

Provincialism...I don't think so. Sure, I used BITNET first. Unlike many
Internet folks, though, I have the benefit of having used and managed both
environments. I guess you think broader experience is a Bad Thing. That's
not to say that I'm the one who knows best because of that experience, but
such experience is hardly a detriment.

You omitted the entire paragraph which stated that if the software were
deemed by its users to be abusive, then they would cease using it. If users
felt the software were abusive, there would not be tens of thousands of
subscribers using the damn lists.

|>   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.

Read the paragraph you omitted from your followup again.

|> 
|>   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.

WOW, a constructive comment...and a good idea. I will pass it on to the
author (really).

By surrounding this comment with the rest of the garbage in your article,
there was a good chance nobody would see it. Are you more interested in
pointing fingers and name-calling or in solving the problem?

|> 
|> >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.
|>

I also have users who expect that replying to "Undelivered mail" and saying
"Please correct the address to so-and-so@wherever" will get their misaddressed
mail delivered.

--Shane