Reply-To: field again !!! (was Re: [WBEL-devel] patchs for missing rpms)

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 22:10, donavan nelson wrote:

[snip]

> > standard for this and I'd rather see list members adjust to using the
> 
> Standard for what?  Which RFC?  If my mail reading agent is really doing
> something wrong, I'd like to know.  I can file a bug report and it will get
> fixed fast.

  Mailing list specific headers.  See rfc2369.  Your mail reading agent
also *seems* to be doing something else wrong given that it somehow
plopped Jimmy Kaplowitz's private email into Cc: field of your message
when, as far as I can tell, it isn't in any of the headers of his
message that you replied to.  Where it got it, I don't know, but I
would, in fact, suggest reporting this as a bug in your mail tool.

> > proper reply command (ctrl-L or Actions->Reply to List in evolution, 
> > for example).  Mistakes happen, and yours was an honest mistake.  A 
> 
> I don't have a reply-to-list button.

> > polite "please use the reply-to-list feature of your mailer" is all 
> > it takes.  Munging Reply-To headers can result in *much* more 
> 
> My mailer (MTA) doesn't deal with Reply-To or reply-to-list headers.  It's the

  I was using "mailer" as a generic term.  If I meant MTA, I would have
said it.  To clarify, I'm talking about client (MUA).

> mail reading apps problem.   And mine see be just a bit 2002ish.  But then
> people shouldn't be sending stuff out with addresses they don't want
> publically exposed.  It's their problem to keep internal mail adresses
> internal or not have their system so wide open that they accept mail destain
> for internal servers.

  Please check Jimmy Kaplowitz's original mail that you replied to with
his private address.  I checked through the headers and could find the
private address he was referring to nowhere in the headers of his
message.  I don't know what your mailer (MUA) did, but it most certainly
didn't do the right thing.

> > embarrassing situations (and in some cases, though probably not this 
> > list, liability) when you hit your reply button and forget that it's 
> > going to go to the entire list instead of just the one user you want 
> > to reply to exclusively.
> 
> I said it one already, I'm too lazy to demangle all the names in the headers.

  Well, here you are admitting that you're too lazy make sure you are
replying to the appropriate addresses.  But you're suggesting that the
mailing list config be changed so you can continue to be lazy?  I'm
trying to remain polite, here, but puh-leeez.

> How is in this header?

  I don't know what you are saying here.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets