Mail-Copies-To: (was Re: Crash in realloc trying to use ImageMagick)

Mail-Copies-To: (was Re: Crash in realloc trying to use ImageMagick)

[SL Baur]

[I've cc'ed this response to the Gnus devel list.  Is there any
progress on getting Mail-Copies-To: on the standards track?  Please
direct followups to the appropriate mailing list.]

Didier Verna <verna@inf.enst.fr> writes:

> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
>> By the way, Bill, are you a "Mail-Copies-To: never" kind of guy?  It's 
>> not in your headers, so I thought I'd ask....

> 	I'm sorry but won't somebody explain to me what is this header 
> for ? Remeber, I'm a very very dumb french blond and I've not been
> here for long ....

If you trust advice from a California, USA born blonde (the dumbest of 
all ...) ...

The `Mail-Copies-To:' header should control how your email (and
Usenet) client prepares a followup message.  It gives control to the
sender of a message whether `courtesy' duplicate copies of messages
should be sent.  M-x praise-be-unto-lars for implementing it.

There are two forms:

Mail-Copies-To: never

Do *not* automatically include the sender of the message being
responded to.  There are two canonical examples.

Usenet:
From: foo@foo.bar
Newsgroups: comp.emacs.xemacs
Mail-Copies-To: never

A followup in a conforming client should generate in the response
message headers:

Newsgroups: comp.emacs.xemacs

Email:
From: foo@foo.bar
To: mailling-list@somewhere.com
Cc: luser@somewhereelse.com
Mail-Copies-To: never

A followup in a conforming client should generate in the response
message headers:

To: mailling-list@somewhere.com
Cc: luser@somewhereelse.com


The second form includes a properly formed RFC822 email address as
the parameter:

Mail-Copies-To: someaddress@somewhere.com

In this case, the sender of the message is specifically requesting
that responses to the message not only go to the main forum (either
mailing list or Usenet newsgroup), but a duplicate copy should also be 
sent to `someaddress@somewhere.com'.

There are (again) two canonical examples.

Usenet:
From: foo@foo.bar
Newsgroups: comp.emacs.xemacs
Mail-Copies-To: foo@foo.bar

A followup in a conforming client should generate in the response
message headers:

Newsgroups: comp.emacs.xemacs
Cc: foo@foo.bar[1]

Email:
From: foo@foo.bar
To: mailling-list@somewhere.com
Cc: luser@somewhereelse.com
Mail-Copies-To: foo@foo.bar

A followup in a conforming client should generate in the response
message headers:

To: mailling-list@somewhere.com
Cc: luser@somewhereelse.com, foo@foo.bar[2]


There is no requirement that the address in `Mail-Copies-To' match the 
`From' address.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Or `To: foo@foo.bar'

[2]  It is also acceptable to put `foo@foo.bar' in the To: line.

Re: Mail-Copies-To: (was Re: Crash in realloc trying to use ImageMagick)

[Olivier Galibert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 326 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 27, 1997 at 11:12:05PM -0800, SL Baur wrote:
> [I've cc'ed this response to the Gnus devel list.  Is there any
> progress on getting Mail-Copies-To: on the standards track?  Please
> direct followups to the appropriate mailing list.]

You may find this message interesting (from the mutt-dev mailing-list).

  OG.

[-- Attachment #2: mft --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4416 bytes --]

>From mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu  Sat Nov 22 05:17:43 1997
Return-Path: <mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu>
Received: from mines.u-nancy.fr (mines.u-nancy.fr [192.70.66.1])
	by lorraine.loria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7/8.8.7/JCG) with ESMTP id FAA26565
	for <galibert@loria.fr>; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:17:42 +0100 (MET)
Received: from turing.cs.hmc.edu (turing.cs.hmc.edu [134.173.42.99]) by mines.u-nancy.fr (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA04187 for <Olivier.Galibert@mines.u-nancy.fr>; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:18:50 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from me@localhost) by turing.cs.hmc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) id UAA26931; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: turing.cs.hmc.edu: me set sender to mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu using -f
Old-Return-Path: esr@snark.thyrsus.com
Message-ID: <19971121232148.14011@snark.thyrsus.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:21:48 -0500
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
To: Michael Elkins <me@cs.hmc.edu>
Cc: Mutt Development List <mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: [0.88.2] feature: support for Mail-Followup-To: and Mail-Reply-To:
References: <19971121161806.34986@la.tis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
In-Reply-To: <19971121161806.34986@la.tis.com>; from Michael Elkins on Fri, Nov 21, 1997 at 04:18:06PM -0800
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy
X-Home-Page: http://www.ccil.org/~esr
Resent-Message-ID: <"ilkn9D.A.KkG.Gwld0"@turing>
Resent-From: mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu
X-Mailing-List: <mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu> 
X-Loop: mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2692
Lines: 52

Michael Elkins <me@cs.hmc.edu>:
> A while back I got some private email from Dan Bernstein asking whether Mutt
> would support Mail-Reply-To (http://pobox.com/~djb/proto/replyto.html).  I
> looked this over and decided that is a pretty good idea, but at the time I
> was hesitant to support it because it is pretty useless unless someone else
> supports it as well.  Apparently this has beeing getting a bit of attention
> in the IETF and I just found out that the next version of Eudora will suport
> it as well, so I'm going ahead and including support for it now.

As a member of the DRUMS group along with Dan Bernstein, I can confirm
that some of us have indeed been thinking along those lines.  Indeed,
Jacob Palme just today submitted an Internet-Draft describing
Mail-Followup-To.

Jacob, the Working Group chair Chris Newman and I all regard this as
complementary to my own Reply-To-Personal proposal, an early version
of which I posted here and which was also submitted as an Internet-Draft
just today.  In fact had me week been a bit less harried Jacob and I
would have issued a joint draft.

While I cannot yet claim that Jacob's and my proposals reflect a
strong consensus on DRUMS, the odds that something quite like them
will form part of 822bis seem good to me.  There is only one opposing
draft, and a straw poll conducted by the DRUMS chair about a month ago
suggested near-consensus on some variant of Personal-Reply-To (which
can be taken to imply support for some header equivalent to
Mail-Followup-To).

All of which is by way of saying that I am delighted that Michael has chosen
to support Mail-Followup-To and intrigued by the rumor that Eudora will soon
do so.  Mike, you may have just helped settle one of DRUMS's thorniest issues.

Within a few days you should be able to view these drafts in the IETF drafts
directory on ds.interrnic.net under the names 

draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt 
   Jacob Palme's draft on the proposed Mail-Followup-To header.

draft-ietf-drums-replyto-personal-00.txt
   My draft on Personal-Reply-To
-- 
		<a href="http://www.ccil.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment
protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while
it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it
remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth
century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787
and 1791 states such a thesis.
        -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

Re: Mail-Copies-To: (was Re: Crash in realloc trying to use ImageMagick)

[Michael Welsh Duggan]

Olivier Galibert <Olivier.Galibert@mines.u-nancy.fr> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 27, 1997 at 11:12:05PM -0800, SL Baur wrote:
> > [I've cc'ed this response to the Gnus devel list.  Is there any
> > progress on getting Mail-Copies-To: on the standards track?  Please
> > direct followups to the appropriate mailing list.]
> 
> You may find this message interesting (from the mutt-dev mailing-list).

I'll assume you meant to insert the following message:

 From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
 Subject: Re: [0.88.2] feature: support for Mail-Followup-To: and Mail-Reply-To:
 To: Michael Elkins <me@cs.hmc.edu>
 Cc: Mutt Development List <mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu>
 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:21:48 -0500
 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
 Resent-From: mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu
X-From-Line: mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu  Sat Nov 22 05:17:43 1997
Return-Path: <mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu>
Received: from mines.u-nancy.fr (mines.u-nancy.fr [192.70.66.1])
	by lorraine.loria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7/8.8.7/JCG) with ESMTP id FAA26565
	for <galibert@loria.fr>; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:17:42 +0100 (MET)
Received: from turing.cs.hmc.edu (turing.cs.hmc.edu [134.173.42.99]) by mines.u-nancy.fr (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA04187 for <Olivier.Galibert@mines.u-nancy.fr>; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:18:50 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from me@localhost) by turing.cs.hmc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) id UAA26931; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: turing.cs.hmc.edu: me set sender to mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu using -f
Old-Return-Path: esr@snark.thyrsus.com
Message-ID: <19971121232148.14011@snark.thyrsus.com>
References: <19971121161806.34986@la.tis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
In-Reply-To: <19971121161806.34986@la.tis.com>; from Michael Elkins on Fri, Nov 21, 1997 at 04:18:06PM -0800
X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy
X-Home-Page: http://www.ccil.org/~esr
Resent-Message-ID: <"ilkn9D.A.KkG.Gwld0"@turing>
X-Mailing-List: <mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu> 
X-Loop: mutt-dev@cs.hmc.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: mutt-dev-request@cs.hmc.edu
Status: RO
X-Content-Length: 2692
Xref: peoria.mt.cs.cmu.edu mail.mutt:1
Lines: 57
 
 Michael Elkins <me@cs.hmc.edu>:
 > A while back I got some private email from Dan Bernstein asking whether Mutt
 > would support Mail-Reply-To (http://pobox.com/~djb/proto/replyto.html).  I
 > looked this over and decided that is a pretty good idea, but at the time I
 > was hesitant to support it because it is pretty useless unless someone else
 > supports it as well.  Apparently this has beeing getting a bit of attention
 > in the IETF and I just found out that the next version of Eudora will suport
 > it as well, so I'm going ahead and including support for it now.
 
 As a member of the DRUMS group along with Dan Bernstein, I can confirm
 that some of us have indeed been thinking along those lines.  Indeed,
 Jacob Palme just today submitted an Internet-Draft describing
 Mail-Followup-To.
 
 Jacob, the Working Group chair Chris Newman and I all regard this as
 complementary to my own Reply-To-Personal proposal, an early version
 of which I posted here and which was also submitted as an Internet-Draft
 just today.  In fact had me week been a bit less harried Jacob and I
 would have issued a joint draft.
 
 While I cannot yet claim that Jacob's and my proposals reflect a
 strong consensus on DRUMS, the odds that something quite like them
 will form part of 822bis seem good to me.  There is only one opposing
 draft, and a straw poll conducted by the DRUMS chair about a month ago
 suggested near-consensus on some variant of Personal-Reply-To (which
 can be taken to imply support for some header equivalent to
 Mail-Followup-To).
 
 All of which is by way of saying that I am delighted that Michael has chosen
 to support Mail-Followup-To and intrigued by the rumor that Eudora will soon
 do so.  Mike, you may have just helped settle one of DRUMS's thorniest issues.
 
 Within a few days you should be able to view these drafts in the IETF drafts
 directory on ds.interrnic.net under the names 
 
 draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt 
    Jacob Palme's draft on the proposed Mail-Followup-To header.
 
 draft-ietf-drums-replyto-personal-00.txt
    My draft on Personal-Reply-To
 -- 
                 <a href="http://www.ccil.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>
 
 In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment
 protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while
 it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
 If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the
 Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it
 remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth
 century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787
 and 1791 states such a thesis.
         -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984
 
 
 --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP--
 

-- 
Michael Duggan
(md5i@cs.cmu.edu)