🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10128@ogicse.ogc.edu> schaefer@ogicse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) writes:
>In article <7329@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes:
>} In article <136802@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller) writes:
>} >Sometimes people send mail to an entire list of people with the
>} >intent that the recipients should *not* be able to reply to everyone,
>} >just the original author.
...
>} The RFCs (822 to be exact) specify a form
>} 	list-name: ;
>} to be used for the purpose you're talking about.
>} Does mush generate this when $no_expand is set?
...
>Joe User (joe@joes.domain.org) has in his .mailrc (or .mushrc) file:
>
>    alias everybody	fred mary tom peter@far.away.edu \
>			henry@farther.off.com uunet!nowhere!jane
>
>If he sets $no_expand in mush and gives the command
>
>    mail everybody
>
>mush will send out a message with the headers (among others)
>
>    From: joe@joes.domain.org
>    To: everybody

EEG

erm..  that is indistinguishable from an un-domained address.  I
personally feel it is a very very bad thing to EVER generate mail
with un-domained addresses in the header.  I know that within some
local net people generally have mail floating around that doesn't
have domains attached to the Mail IDs ... and that's fine so long
as the mail stays in the local net.  But once it escapes, and it
may well escape without passing through a gateway which cleans up
and domainifies the header, then it will only cause confusion to
people replaying to a header with all these addresses which look
like they're local.

For instance:  the security mailing list at "zardoz" sends out a
normal digest format with the headers inside the digest being in
UUCP format relative to zardoz.  I use mh for reading mail and use
the burst command to burst digests.  So now I have a bunch of messages
in the zardoz-security-list folder with unusable headers.  Even if
the digest had passed through a gateway machine which cleans the
headers it wouldn't have gone into the body and cleaned up the
headers in the body.

Ergo:  Always generate mail with full domain names in the header
or in some other way avoid strenuously making it look as if the
names in the headers are local.




>Yes, I agree this is imperfect, and we have considered changes.  It
>isn't clear what the translation into 822 syntax should be; do we
>make it 
>
>    To: everybody:;

Sure.. Some other places do this.  CSNET, for instance, recently
started using this format for sending out the CSNET Forum type stuff.

RFC-822 describes groups as so:

     6.2.6.  MULTIPLE MAILBOXES
...
        A set of individuals may wish to receive mail as a single unit
        (i.e.,  a  distribution  list).  The <group> construct permits
        specification of such a list.  Recipient mailboxes are  speci-
        fied  within  the  bracketed  part (":" - ";").  A copy of the
        transmitted message is to be  sent  to  each  mailbox  listed.
        This  standard  does  not  permit  recursive  specification of
        groups within groups.

And an example

     A.2.4.  Committee activity, with one author

             George is a member of a committee.  He wishes to have any
        replies to his message go to all committee members.

            From:     George Jones <Jones@Host.Net>
            Sender:   Jones@Host
            Reply-To: The Committee: Jones@Host.Net,
                                     Smith@Other.Org,
                                     Doe@Somewhere-Else;

Elsewhere it says that the list need not be present.  

In other words..  this group:; format is meant for the exact situation
which the "alias" in mush and/or ucbmail covers.



I'd propose two commands and/or variables

	use_group_syntax
	list_group_members


-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF weenie, <david@twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!