Subject: Re: Auto respond (fwd)

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:32:55 -0400 (EDT)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:28:44 +0200
From: A person that has a clue, who will remain anonymous.
To: Those of us who have a clue.
Subject: Re: Auto respond

90 seconds of editing gives you these sigs:

Aaron S. Hawley          [email-masked] http://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley
Home: Vergennes, VT, US  // University of Vermont // 802.656.7396
Pine 3.96 E-Mailer on UVM Zoo Unix Cluster  http://www.washington.edu/pine

Debora E. Ervin   [email-masked]
Suite 111-130 // 2288 Gunbarrel Road // Chattanooga, TN 37421
FON (423)697-7775 Ext. 6003    Toll Free:(800)301-7299 Ext. 2
FAX (423)622-8862 Visit our website at http://www.ccunltd.com

---

From: "Aaron S. Hawley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:00:20 -0400 (EDT)

thanks ken i'll seriously use the new signature.  question why is four
lines the standard?

Aaron S. Hawley          [email-masked] http://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley
Home: Vergennes, VT, US  // University of Vermont // 802.656.7396
Pc-Pine 4.05 E-Mailer http://www.washington.edu/pine

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:28:56 -0500 (CDT)

>From: "Aaron S. Hawley" <[email-masked]>
>Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:00:20 -0400 (EDT)

>Pc-Pine 4.05 E-Mailer http://www.washington.edu/pine

Sven (Ken just forwarded) forgot to emphasize use of the delimiter:
"-- " [two hyphens followed by a space on a line above the .sig]

It's not a standard; it's a convention. It has nothing to do with routing
messages through machines. It has everything to do with trying the patience of
those who would read your message.

I haven't been receiving e-mail long enough to recall, so I cannot speak to
this from experience. From what I have read, in the beginning Mail compliant
with Internet (and predessors) standards was relayed through uucp. Typically,
but not always, the headers survived intact.

However, Mail was often gatewayed to other systems like BITNET and FidoNET that
followed different protocols. All of these systems were like uucp: store and
forward.

Also, the original mailing list server, LISTSERV, was written in Europe to
distribute messages over the US BITNET. The purpose was to consolidate the
sending of identical messages as much as possible to better utilize the use of
extremely expensive resources, namely trans-Atlantic communications.

LISTSERV only identified the name of the mailing list at first, not the author
of the message.

For all these reasons, it became a practice to include the author's name in the
.sig. Today, none of these reasons exist anymore, and information in the .sig
is either redundant or unnecessary.

The real reason authors include .sigs is vanity or advertising.

However, you may put any text you like into the body of a Mail message. If you
follow the convention of use of "-- " as a delimiter and include no more than
four lines of text, no one at all will complain. Four lines of text is
generally considered to be "within reason" and won't irritate anyone.

The following arguments are made against .sigs in general, and my use of the
word "you" isn't aimed specifically at Aaron's new .sig.

Yes, there can be gateways that munge headers these days, but they are called
"broken". Rather than have everyone assume that repeating one's name in the
.sig is necessary, it is up to the users of those gateways to take steps to fix
them. It's their problem, not the rest of us.

The rest of the information people typically unnecessary. We don't need to your
phone number. We don't care to reach you by wireless, whether pager or
cellular, and we aren't going to send you a fax.

We know your e-mail address, and that's how we'll contact you if we choose to.
We know your name: It's in your From line. (It's not? Then put it there.)

It's lovely that you have a Web page. Is anything on it relevant to the Subject
of the thread? Then make reference to it much earlier in your message.

Are any of your 15 affiliations relevant to the arguments you made in your
message? Unlikely. If you actually published a paper, cite it. If we want to,
we'll read it and make our own judgement.

And as far as those quotes go, yes, it was witty when the original author said
it. You are repeating it over and over again. It's now trite.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Aaron S. Hawley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:51:03 -0500 (EST)

Thanks Adam for the Info on signature files.  Now that wasn't so bad now
was it Michael Ruder (he gave me crap for talking about signatures).  but
now i think i learned something, and isn't what this Pine Discussion Forum
is all about learningin something about using Pine.  And I would think
signatures have to do with Pine.  we all have to deal with other peoples
signature so lets understand the ethics of signatures.  That's just my
take on it.  although i can sympathize with peoples annoyance that we are
making a huge discussions over signaturs.

--
Aaron S. [email-masked]://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley/
University of Vermont__Millis 428__802.656.7396

Pine 3.96 E-Mailer on Zoo Unix Cluster_______________________________
small,fast,simple,complex,free_________http://www.washington.edu/pine

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:47:24 -0600 (CST)

Please do not Cc the author when replying to his message on a mailing list or
on a newsgroup. Please don't quote back the ENTIRE message. If you have a
comment on a specific aspect of the message, quote that and delete everything
else.

>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:51:03 -0500 (EST)

>Thanks Adam for the Info on signature files.  Now that wasn't so bad now

Aaron, I'll trust that you used "-- " including the trailing blank. But a
gateway somewhere truncates trailing blanks, a common but broken practice.

You've gotten your .sig down to 4 lines of text, which is fine. But I'd still
urge you to remove the three blank lines.

---

From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:32:55 -0700 (MST)

> on a newsgroup. Please don't quote back the ENTIRE message. If you have a

Then in that case, it would probably be a good idea if the list
administrators changed the list setup to add a "reply-to:" line to the
headers. The way it's currently set up, if you do a reply in pine, You
either have to reply directyl to the author, or to the author and cc: to
the list. that, or go in and munge the addressees of the reply, which,
quite frankly, is a royal pain in the butt. 

-Ian

---

From: Adam Sulmicki <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:14:12 -0500

"Adam H. Kerman" writes:

->Please don't quote back the ENTIRE message. If you have a comment on a 
->specific aspect of the message, quote that and delete everything else.

Yes.

->Please do not Cc the author when replying to his message on a mailing list or
->on a newsgroup. 

No. 

That's not that simple. For some ppl may it seems to good solution,
but other's hate it. In fact a while ago on linux kernel mailing list
they did try to implement Reply-To solution so that reply would go
back only to list. However, after a lots of protest they backed off.

The reason for this is that many ppl use mail filtering programs. For 
example in mine case, the mail for 'pine' goes to one folder and
mail sent to me goes to different folder. Thus it is good to send
both copies because :

1) I can maintain proper archive of both, 'personal' and 'pine'
folders.

2) I know that someone send an email to me, and it deverves priority
in responding. After all I get around 500 emails a day. Thus I may 
have time to read them all on given day. CCing me helps make sure it 
gets my attention.

Adam

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:38:34 -0600 (CST)

>From: Adam Sulmicki <[email-masked]>
>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:14:12 -0500

>No.

I just made a specific request. You may disagree with me that it shouldn't
apply to replies you send to others. But you just deliberately Cc'd me against
my wishes. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately irritating.

>back only to list. However, after a lots of protest they backed off.

Having the list server set Reply-To is especially evil. That header is for the
legitimate use of the author of a mail message. He may be writing a messgae
from one account and asking that replies be sent to another account he uses.

The list server SHOULD pass messages intact, except for adding Received headers
and any necessary headers added by moderators. It should NEVER alter any
headers set by the author.

>mail sent to me goes to different folder.

You may filter incoming mail as you wish. I filter first by looking for replies
to messages I sent, not caring if they were personal e-mail or via a mailing
list. Or I look for Subjects containing threads I participated in. (Unlike in
News, which tries to maintain threads with Message-IDs, Mail tends to discard
earlier Message-IDs so that's not reliable.) Or I look for text unique to the
thread.

After that initial filtering, I look for header information (like Sender) which
is unique to a mailing list I'm on.

Nearly everything else is spam, even if personally addressed to me.

>Thus it is good to send both copies because :

>1) I can maintain proper archive of both, 'personal' and 'pine' folders.

Lots of people save all incoming mail. Make a judgment when you first read it.
If you don't think you'll ever need to look at it again, discard it.

>have time to read them all on given day. CCing me helps make sure it 

It sounds like instead you should set up an outgoing message filter to prevent
you from subscribing to any more mailing lists you couldn't possibly read.

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:38:41 -0500 (EST)

> quite frankly, is a royal pain in the butt. 

You certainly are a lazy asshole, aren't you???  Take the extra 3 seconds.
Here's what you have to do.

Up arrow
Up arrow
Up arrow
Up arrow
CTRL-k
Downarrow
CTRL-k
up arrow
CTRL-u

Pretty simple, isn't it, you stupid bastard?

Now, if you were GOOD, you could add a crtl sequence, and do that with one
keystroke, like the rest of us do.  However, you're not, so just do what I
outlined above.

obpine: ehh.....anybody ever compile pine so that it sends ROT13 by
default????  Fun.

--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com
Yes, I know I'm an asshole.  So???

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:05:26 -0600 (CST)

>From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:32:55 -0700 (MST)

>>on a newsgroup.

>Then in that case, it would probably be a good idea if the list administrators
>changed the list setup to add a "reply-to:" line to the headers. The way it's
>currently set up, if you do a reply in pine, You either have to reply directyl
>to the author, or to the author and cc: to the list. that, or go in and munge
>the addressees of the reply

I don't care for Pine's implementation of replies to messages from mailing
lists either. But having the list server add or overwrite Reply-To is simply
evil. An author is assumed to have a good reason when he set Reply-To, and the
server should take pains to minimize the changes it makes to send the message
to the list.

pine is the tool we chose to use. Replying to a list is one of its limitations.
As users, we must work with it. But it is wrong to expect list owners to
overcome such definciencies, even the owner of pine-info.

---

From: Darren Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:31:19 -0500 (EST)

> server should take pains to minimize the changes it makes to send the message

I've seen this arguement in several places. Some people argue this with a
religous zeal that is not to be believed. 

Look, its a matter of perspective. I send a message the the list the list
sends a message to everyone else. I don't send the message to everyone
else the list does.  Since the list is now sending the message its legit
for it to set the reply-to header as it sees fit. 

On a list that is meant to be a discussion list and not a contact list or
an announcement list the reply too should always be set to the list imo.

______________________________________________________________________
Darren Henderson                              [email-masked]

                   Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 14:45:56 -0600 (CST)

>From: Darren Henderson <[email-masked]>
>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:31:19 -0500 (EST)

>>But having the list server add or overwrite Reply-To is simply evil. An
>>author is assumed to have a good reason when he set Reply-To, and the server
>>should take pains to minimize the changes it makes to send the message to the
>>list.

>for it to set the reply-to header as it sees fit.

Like people who argue in favor of servers munging messages, you are blind to
the main point: The author of the message has the right to set Reply-To as he
likes for his own purposes. The list owner is usurping that right by
substituting his judgment.

>an announcement list the reply too should always be set to the list imo.

If you make a mistake in a reply, would you rather take a chance that you sent
it to only one person or you sent a private message to all?

Setting Reply-To is ALSO an attempt to substitute for the judgment of the
person composing the reply. The list owner is saying, there should NEVER be any
private replies.

---

From: Darren Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:47:21 -0500 (EST)

> substituting his judgment.

Nope, your using my list, you accept the terms of how that list works. I'm
not stopping you from replying privately. I may be making you work a bit
harder to do it but thats because its meant to be a discussion and not a
place for setting up private contacts (if thats the nature of the list).
I'm not blind to anything, I view the relationships differently then you
is all. You're submitting something to a list to be broadcast. If the list
is moderated it may or may not be accepted. Am I then usurping your right
to speak? Lists frequently tack on footers on every message, are they
coopting my editorial and speech rights when they do that? Of course not.

If you belong to a list you are agreeing to accept the terms the list
maintainer has choosen. You can ask them (hopefully outside the list, and
hopefully politely) to change those terms.

This really isnt a discussion thats appropriate to this list other then
perhaps as an example of why it migth be nice if pine could some how
attempt to devine the source of a message and explicitly ask: Reply to
(L)ist, (A)uthor, or (B)oth or some such.

> it to only one person or you sent a private message to all?

So everyone should have to do more to protect you from making a stupid
mistak? Anyone who sends a message without double checking the receipient
is asking for trouble. We can't protect everyone from everything. Personal
responsibility ya know?

> person composing the reply. The list owner is saying, there should NEVER be any

Thats just silly. Just making it the tinyest bit harder for you to do it.
You have to concuously take a discussion away from the list. I'm certainly
not capbalbe of reaching out there and stopping you from sending to
whoever you like to send too.

It is expressing a preference that you reply to the list instead of
privately and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that if its appropriate
for the given list.

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:13:53 -0600 (CST)

>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:47:21 -0500 (EST)

>I'm not blind to anything,

This is my final try. If you miss the point again, I will assume that there is
nothing I can do to open your eyes.

Reply-To is a header designed to be used by the composer of a message. Only
later was its use taken over by a few list owners who fail to acknowledge its
original utility.

Let's say, for my convenience, I have multiple mailboxes. Suppose I subscribe
to a mailing list and must post to the list using a specific From. I
participate on a thread that pertains to a subject I have a regular interest
in. It could be business or a hobby. Normally, I correspond with people using a
different From.

So, I participate on the thread and set Reply-To to the mailbox to which I want
personal replies directed to.

I'd say that I have a legitimate use for setting Reply-To myself. If you were
the list owner, you have decided that I may NOT set Reply-To. You instead
substitute your own judgment and have the server munge it to the list posting
address.

You, the list owner, are doing something harmful.

>I view the relationships differently then you is all. You're submitting
>something to a list to be broadcast. If the list is moderated it may or may
>not be accepted. Am I then usurping your right to speak?

You have missed the point. You are so wide of the mark that the shot went
around the bend into the next county.

You are usurping MY right to ask people to send replies NOT to the address I
must post from, but to another address at which I would prefer to receive them.

>Lists frequently tack on footers on every message, are they coopting my
>editorial and speech rights when they do that? Of course not.

To some extent, they are. A list server can make necessary modifications to
headers, like Sender. The purist would say Make minimal modifications! But no
purist would EVER modify the body of a message.

However, that is much less harmful than setting Reply-To.

---

From: "Aaron S. Hawley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:06:12 -0500 (EST)

what if i was to just Cc to the Pine-info duscussion list ould you guys be
pissed?  and not put in the To?  not like i'm to lazy to do it the right
way.  but i've been doing it that way and i'm wondering if anyone was
gving me crap for that at any time.

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:22:24 -0600 (CST)

>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:06:12 -0500 (EST)

>gving me crap for that at any time.

That wouldn't break anything; go for it.

---

From: "Robin S. Socha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:31:37 +0100

> > Please do not Cc the author when replying to his message on a mailing list
> > or on a newsgroup. Please don't quote back the ENTIRE message. If you have
> > a
> 
> headers. 

Not at all, and if you finally decided to do a little voluntary reading
instead of your usual, revolting whining, you might even get a clue why.

> The way it's currently set up, if you do a reply in pine, 

Then use Gnus or mutt, but stop whining.

> You either have to reply directyl to the author, or to the author and cc: to
> the list. that, or go in and munge the addressees of the reply, which, quite
> frankly, is a royal pain in the butt. 

There it is again... listen, dude, your "this sucks and isn't userfriendly"
'tude seriously pisses me off. If you don't like the way pine behaves, don't
use it or write a patch - apart from being a nice program, pine also happens
to be a free program. If you're too stoopid to do either, please show a little
decency towards the innocent people on this list (which, after all is for
technical problems and not your, like, intellectual deficiencies and stuff,
huh-huh...) and quit whining. Just do it. Shut up and get a clue. Now.
Thankyouverymuch.

Robin

-- 
Robin S. Socha
<http://www.kens.com/robin/>

---

From: Michael Talbot-Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:24:06 +1030 (CST)

> later was its use taken over by a few list owners who fail to acknowledge its

Where is your proof that it was designed for the exclusive use of
the author of the original message?

> I'd say that I have a legitimate use for setting Reply-To myself. If you were

Yes, you have a legitimate use.  That is a reasonable thing to want
to do. 

It is also reasonable for a list owner to want to do something that
conflicts with what you want.

> substitute your own judgment and have the server munge it to the list posting

This is where you get paranoid.  There is a very good reason for
list servers to set the Reply-To to point to the list.  It is very
annoying when replies go to originators with cc: to the list.  Every
response is duplicated, if people do just the natural thing in
replying.  Lists of recipients consisting of everone who ever
contributed to a thread are built up, and still there is a cc. to
the list.  People who have forgotten that they ever contributed
continue to get double mailings, firstly from the author and
secondly from the list.

Pointing Reply-To to the list fixes the problem.  Responses then go
to a single address, that of the mailing list, and that is how a
mailing list is meant to work.

Mail reflected from a mailing list must have a 'From:' identifying
the author, but for the mailing list to work, your MUA must be
instructed ignore it, to not reply to the 'From:' address but to
Reply To another one.  That is what 'Reply-To:' is for, get it?

> You, the list owner, are doing something harmful.

It's really not a moral question, you know.  The mailing list
software came along and set the Reply-To, as always.  You had
already set a Reply-to and it was obliterated by the new setting. 
That is all.

Your remaining claims are silly enough not to need any response. 
Accept the policy of the list owner, or unsubscribe. 

--Mike

---

From: "Robin S. Socha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:47:21 +0100

> earlier Message-IDs so that's not reliable.) Or I look for text unique to the

If you get that many messages, use procmail's weighted scoring techniques or
use Gnus with adaptive scoring. I got higher scores for follow-up's (Gnus
treats mail and news alike) to myself. EOT.

Robin

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:14:48 -0600 (CST)

What part of "Do no Cc the author of a message if you reply to a mailing list
or on News" is unclear?

>From: Michael Talbot-Wilson <[email-masked]>
>Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:24:06 +1030 (CST)

>the author of the original message?

     RFC #  822

                        STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF

                        ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES

                              August 13, 1982

     4.4.  ORIGINATOR FIELDS

          The standard allows only a subset of the combinations possi-
     ble  with the From, Sender, Reply-To, Resent-From, Resent-Sender,
     and Resent-Reply-To fields.  The limitation is intentional.

     4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO

        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
        uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   In  the  first
        case,  the  author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
        boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
        address.   In  the  second case, an author may wish additional
        persons to be made aware of, or responsible for,  replies.   A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their
        own.

     4.4.4.  AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO

        For systems which automatically  generate  address  lists  for
        replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:

            o   If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply  should
                go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to
                the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.

That's been an absolutely clear recommendation since 1982.

>> I'd say that I have a legitimate use for setting Reply-To myself.

>Yes, you have a legitimate use.  That is a reasonable thing to want to do.

>conflicts with what you want.

And according to the recommendation in the RFC I just posted, the author's
wishes should be honored.

>>If you were the list owner, you have decided that I may NOT set Reply-To. You
>>instead substitute your own judgment and have the server munge it to the list
>>posting address.

>This is where you get paranoid.  There is a very good reason for list servers
>to set the Reply-To to point to the list.  It is very annoying when replies go
>to originators with cc: to the list.

YOU are the one who did that. Just because pine behaves in a certain way when
Reply-To is not present, just because many of us disagree with pine's behavior,
we accept that as a limitation of pine and work around it.

It is outrageous to blame YOUR personal bad behavior on either the mail client
or the mailing list owner.

You find it too inconvenient to send the keystrokes necessary to avoid sending
duplicate messages? Change mail clients. You cannot demand that the rest of the
world change reasonable behavior to accomodate your unreasonable attitude.

>Every response is duplicated, if people do just the natural thing in replying.

The natural thing is to fart in public, eat with our hands, pick our noses, and
altogether violate standards of civilization. Observance of etiquette keeps us
from killing each other, also natural behavior.

The Internet is a shared resource which you don't pay for. It has its own
standards of conduct. No one wants to talk to you if you do "just the natural
thing". While it is unnatural to demonstrate common courtesy, do it anyway.

>Reply To another one.  That is what 'Reply-To:' is for, get it?

That's been my point for several messages on this thread. It's tool for the
author's use.

>already set a Reply-to and it was obliterated by the new setting. 

It's a violation of a 16-year-old recommendation. Many of us think it was well-
intended then and should continue to guide us today.

>Accept the policy of the list owner, or unsubscribe.

Explain why that doesn't apply to you. The policy of the owner of pine-info is
that Reply-To is not set. Numerous people, including me, have asked that
duplicates of replies to the list not be sent to us.

The list owner's policy, then, is that YOU should cut the line containing the
author's address from your reply if you compose in pine. Through your actions,
you have made it clear that you don't like that policy and flaunt it.

I expect you to immediately unsubscribe from this mailing list.

---

From: Darren Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:09:57 -0500 (EST)

>         guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their

Did you even read this? Just what do you think "text message
teleconferencing" groups are? Give it a rest. I doubgt seriously that the
list maintainers are even considiering the change. If they are then you
can review your decision to paticipate.

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:26:30 -0500 (EST)

Dude, you need to shut the fuck up.  
You don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about.

--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:08:04 -0600 (CST)

>Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:09:57 -0500 (EST)

>teleconferencing" groups are? Give it a rest.

This gentleman is aware that he has no point to make that contradicts my own
arguments. He engaged in selective editing of the text I had posted.

The excerpts from RFC822 in 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 must be read together to understand
them. Mr. Henderson deliberately ignored and deleted the recommendations found
in 4.4.4.

Read them yourselves and form your own opinion.

---

From: Darren Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:41:09 -0500 (EST)

Oh please...selective quoting indeed. 

I quoted back too much if anything, quoting is meant to provide a
reference pont, a guide to give an indication to what my comment was
addressing.

Recall what I stated a few days ago about this (Reply-to) being a religous
issue with some people. Tis a pointless argument.

---

From: "Glenn A. Malling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:44:04 -0500

Why argue about what the author of RFC822 intended when he has
stated his intentions in public?  Note well that RFC822
pre-dates mailing list managers as Mr. Crocker acknowledges.
Now whether I will let YOU control ME is a question of
possible interest to psycologists or sociologists, certainly
not a technical issue.  ;-)

You could also note that the mailing list manager used by this
mailing list does not munge the Reply-to: so the complaint is
against some mail user agent(s).

The DRUMS mailing list archive is available via anonymous
IMAP. There are quite a few people who decline to give such
control to others.  You can read them for yourselves should
you be interested. 

{cyrus.andrew.cmu.edu:143/anonymous}archive.[]

-- 
Glenn A. Malling <[email-masked]>
Syracuse University Computing Services   +1 (315) 443-4111
220 Machinery Hall  Syracuse, New York 13244-1260

Postmaster for SUnix and LISTSERV.

Subject: Re: Reply-to, etc.
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:14:56 -0700

Folks,

	The Reply-to conundrum is all the more perplexing for the relative
simplicity of the issues:  Originators dictate alternate addresses and
mailing lists needing to override default recipient system behaviors.  

	Perhaps the main source of confusion is a bit of revisionistic reading
going on.  Perhaps the other main source is the considerable paucity of
user-to-user email protocol features, so that none of us is all that used
to modeling things like Reply-to as a protocol.  But please don't get
distracted.  Yes, this is the stuff of protocols, albeit end-user to
end-user.  It very much does dictate bits over the wire.

RFC822 Intent:

	Most of the relevant text in RFC 822 is every bit as vague to today's
readers have observed, except that the ambiguity is blown away by one

>                the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.

	So, for all the possible confusion about the earlier references about
where replies should be sent, this one paragraph gives very specific
direction.  The use of 'should' is the cause of my using the word
"revisionistic".  Yes, today's specifications use the word 'should' as
guidance rather than dictum.  Sorry but we weren't that precise way back
when.  Nonetheless, the intent behind From/Reply-to is quite specific:  The
originator of the message is directing that any reply which would be sent
to address(es) in the From field must go to the address(s) listed in
Reply-to.  Reply-to has nothing to do with addresses in cc or To.

	Sorry, no, the originator is not politely making a suggestion.  The
originator is saying that they do not want replies to go to From.  They
want them to go to Reply-To.  Now a respondent is free to engage in
whatever socially deviant behavior they might wish and one suspects that
the protocol police will be no more forceful about dealing with the
transgression than they have been about email sillinesses in the past, but
please don't confuse the lack of enforcement with a lack of clarity in the
originator's intent.

	All of this is made sadly worse by the group communication mess.  Yes,
this part of the system IS a mess.  Perhaps the major problem is that we
have no way to indicate that an address is a list rather than an
individual.  To the extent that we are trying to add a facility which
clearly and cleanly directs that a reply intended for the entire set of
addresses (From, To, CC) go to that one address, I suggest we consider a
new header as several have suggested, though that won't solve the problem,
really, given the distributed nature of list services.  Still, it would be
better than what we have today.

	List developers have been desperate to deal with legitimate problems and
found that the Internet mail facilities did not give them the right tools,
so they jumped into overloading Reply-to.  They chose what was available
but that does not make the choice right.  The right choice is to leave
Reply-to to its original intent and deal with the group override through a
separate mechanism.

d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker                                          +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                           fax: +1 408 249 6205  
675 Spruce Dr.                               [email-masked]
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                    http://www.brandenburg.com

Internet Mail Consortium             [email-masked], http://www.imc.org

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:18:29 -0600 (CST)

>Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:41:09 -0500 (EST)

>Oh please...selective quoting indeed.

For anyone with an open mind, this is what he selectively deleted. As you can
see, it was written with broadly enough that it still applies today.

I interpret this to mean that if the author of the message has set Reply-To,
then the list owner should not reset it to the list-posting address. I find
this recommendation to be unambiguous.

>I quoted back too much if anything, quoting is meant to provide a reference
>pont, a guide to give an indication to what my comment was addressing.

Since you failed to address this, your arguments are inadequate.

>issue with some people. Tis a pointless argument.

You've asked me to support my position; I've done so. You only supported your
position by cheating.

---

From: Darren Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:09:09 -0500 (EST)

> You've asked me to support my position; I've done so. You only supported your

I have never asked you to support your position though other members of
the list have I believe.

As for the rest... I won't dignify that childish accusation with a
response other then to say welcome you to my /dev/null... Procmail is a
wonderful tool.

---

From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:32:40 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Ken Woods wrote:

> Dude, you need to shut the [BLEEP] up.  
> You don't have a [BLEEP] clue as to what you're talking about.

Ah, yes, I love the internet, where we can have adult discussions and
really adult responses. Uh huh. 

Two words:

GROW UP.

---

From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:35:26 -0700 (MST)

>                 the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.

Read again. All this is saying is that if there is a Reply-to field, that
the client should direct the replies to it instead of what's in the from
field. that is ALL that says.

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:54:36 -0500 (EST)

> really adult responses. Uh huh. 

Five words:

Fuck off, nobody asked you.

--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:30:51 -0600 (CST)

Why is this such a difficult concept for everyone on this list?

Don't Cc me!

>Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:35:26 -0700 (MST)

>field. that is ALL that says.

If the author has set Reply-To, replies are directed to that address. So if the
list owner overwrites it, it won't go to the address indicated in that field.

That violates the recommendation.

---

From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:55:52 -0700 (MST)

> Fuck off, nobody asked you.

Um, yes, you asked all of us. By posting your idiocy to a public
discussion forum, you open yourself to any and all criticism, ridicule,
and flames. If you don't like it, there's always the "unsubscribe"
command.

What are you, 13?

And if you take it to private mail, rest assured that it will all go
directly to /dev/null.

-Ian

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:44:16 -0500 (EST)

> and flames. If you don't like it, there's always the "unsubscribe"

Never said that I didn't like it.
Quite the contrary, acutally.  I thrive on conflict, and intelligent
debate.  However, you have proven yourself to be an unworthy debate
opponent.

*PLONK*

--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com
And my filter can /dev/null you, even if you do post messages to the list. 
You need to man procmail man procmailrc

---

From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:47:38 -0700 (MST)

> You need to man procmail man procmailrc

By all means, be my guest.

---

From: Ian Hall-Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:50:38 -0700 (MST)

> debate.  However, you have proven yourself to be an unworthy debate

Heehee... anybody else get a good laugh about this? 

For the record, reverting to profanity does not constitute intelligent
debate. It indicates a lack of control, a lack of mastery of the language,
and general pre-pubescent behaviour. Welcome to the killfile, hop you like
it in there.

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:48:44 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Ian Hall-Beyer wrote:

> > I thrive on conflict, and intelligent debate
> 

(A) Self control???  You're not dead yet, are you???  That's self control
on my part.
(B) OK, we could continue this in German if you'd like.  How about
French??? Spanish??  For that matter, while it could be technically
challanging, it could be done in American Sign Language.  I normally think
in any one of the 5.  How about you???
(C) See below, you stupid asshole.

*sigh*

This email is about goals.
What's the goal??

You stupid assholes need to get a fucking clue.

****************************

=OK, now, stop thinking about everything you have just read.  
Now, think about the emotion that it invoked; beit anger, job,
aggravation, or whatever.  Profanity, and antagonistic language, when used
correctly, is a VERY valuable tool for stirring emotion. 

GOAL: 
An increase in strong emotions triggers the brain to engage.
Once a bodys' brain has engaged, they (sometimes) start to think
for themselves.  Think, think, think.

=Most of my responses are short and often are "man procmail", "man man"
or "man perl". That pisses alot of people off.
Oh well.
GOAL:
To make you people think about your problem before blindly posting a
question to the list. If you know that my answer is going to be "man
somethingthatyoualreadyknow", then think about that for a while.  Maybe
you will be able to START on a solution.  If you check the archives,
you'll  find that I've never flamed, or ridiclued anyone who has attempted
to solve their own problems in an intelligent, methodical manner.

=Something that everybody needs to realize is the following: This list is
not intended for Joe Blow to ask stupid questions.  This list is intended
to be utilized by admins, and HIGH level users, asking questions that are
technical in nature.
GOAL:
Don't ask me how to set up a filter on this list.
Use comp.mail.pine for things of that nature.  However, be forewarned,
unless you've ready Nancy's docs, the PINE FAQ, and done a web search on
"mail filters", don't expect me to be nice.

=Final Thoughts.
=If you don't agree with me, and are about to compose a message telling me
to "fuck off", please agree to do this:  Wait 15 mins. Re-read this
message.  If you still feel that you have something that you need to say,
then please do so.
GOAL:
To kill this pathetic "waahh, the people on the pine-info list are mean
to everybody" thread.

--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com