No Cc on wide reply

No Cc on wide reply

[Harry Putnam]

A wide reply is supposed to pick up any Cc headers in the current
message right?

I've been noticing at times that pressing `F' isn't bringing the Cc
header into the message.  What might cause that?

I remember that it is not supposed to if a group had a to-address set
in group params but that is not the case here. 

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Kai Großjohann]

Does the message have a Mail-Copies-To header?
kai
-- 
I like BOTH kinds of music.

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Harry Putnam]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> Does the message have a Mail-Copies-To header?

Erp.. yup thats it.  Now what is the appropriate thing in this case.

The message containing the Cc was Cced to me but the author has
included:
Mail-Copies-To: never

So apparently the author himself freely Cc's but asks not to be Cc'ed
himself.  Hmmm ... 

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>  on Sat, 22 Jul 2000
| The message containing the Cc was Cced to me but the author has
| included:
| Mail-Copies-To: never

That is broken.  Mail-Copies-To is for news articles, not mail.  It makes
no sense in a mail message.  I think the correct thing to do in this
situation is to inform the author that he is misusing the header, and then
edit the message and remove the header so that Gnus does the Right Thing
when you compose your reply.
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Kai Großjohann]

On 22 Jul 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> That is broken.  Mail-Copies-To is for news articles, not mail.  It
> makes no sense in a mail message.

I think the header might be useful in a posting to a mailing list.
Maybe the author doesn't want to receive two copies of the replies,
and is subscribed to the mailing list.

Or is this way off-base?

kai
-- 
I like BOTH kinds of music.

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Sun, 23 Jul 2000
| I think the header might be useful in a posting to a mailing list.
| Maybe the author doesn't want to receive two copies of the replies,
| and is subscribed to the mailing list.

Reply-To is used in a mail message to direct replies to someone other than
the originator.  Using Mail-Copies-To to duplicate this behavior is
redundant.

Here's the current (to my knowledge) Mail-Copies-To draft:
<URL:http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html>
It really is for news articles, not mail.
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ 

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Simon Josefsson]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> | I think the header might be useful in a posting to a mailing list.
> | Maybe the author doesn't want to receive two copies of the replies,
> | and is subscribed to the mailing list.
> 
> Reply-To is used in a mail message to direct replies to someone other than
> the originator.  Using Mail-Copies-To to duplicate this behavior is
> redundant.

Reply-To is not used when I do "followup", but Mail-Copies-To is. (But
I admit it's questionable if it should.)

What would the mail headers look that achieve the same thing as my
"Mail-Copies-To: never" in this mail look like?

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Paul Jarc]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 978 bytes --]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
> * Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Sun, 23 Jul 2000
> | I think the header might be useful in a posting to a mailing list.
> | Maybe the author doesn't want to receive two copies of the replies,
> | and is subscribed to the mailing list.
> 
> Reply-To is used in a mail message to direct replies to someone other than
> the originator.  Using Mail-Copies-To to duplicate this behavior is
> redundant.

OTOH, setting Reply-To to point to a mailing list is misuse of
Reply-To as well.[0]  (Even when it's done by users instead of the
list software, I say.)  Mail-Followup-To[1] is a solution designed
specifically for this problem.  Gnus should support it, but I'm not
sure whether it would necessitate a distinction between wide reply to
news and wide reply to mail.

[0] <URL:http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/rants/reply-to-considered-harmful.html>
[1] <URL:http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>


paul

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>  on Mon, 24 Jul 2000
| Reply-To is not used when I do "followup", but Mail-Copies-To is. (But
| I admit it's questionable if it should.)

Not questionble at all: you shouldn't.
You should be switching on the backend type, and only use Mail-Copies-To
when using a news backend.  Admittedly mine is back-asswards, creating the
header by default and removing it for non-nntp backends:

	(cond ((or (not (boundp 'gnus-select-method))
		   (not (equal (car gnus-select-method) 'nntp)))
	       (let* ((headers nil))
		 (setq headers (list "Mail-Copies-To"
				     "X-No-Archive"))
		 (message-narrow-to-headers)
		 (while headers
		   (message-remove-header (car headers))
		   (setq headers (cdr headers)))
		 )))

But that should give you an idea of what to switch on.
Or else posting styles could be used, probably.

| What would the mail headers look that achieve the same thing as my
| "Mail-Copies-To: never" in this mail look like?

Reply-To: [mailing-list-mailbox]
Which has its own plethora of problems, but there you have it.
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin.
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ 

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)  on Mon, 24 Jul 2000
| OTOH, setting Reply-To to point to a mailing list is misuse of
| Reply-To as well.[0]  (Even when it's done by users instead of the
| list software, I say.)

No, it is potentialy very, very bad, but semantically correct.  Its one of
those things that is allowed by the spec but should not be done.
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Kai Großjohann]

On 23 Jul 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Reply-To is used in a mail message to direct replies to someone
> other than the originator.  Using Mail-Copies-To to duplicate this
> behavior is redundant.

Of course.  Silly me.

kai
-- 
I like BOTH kinds of music.

Re: No Cc on wide reply

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)  on Sat, 29 Jul 2000
| In particular, `remove jrl@frob.org from list of recipients' (the
| operation intended by `Mail-Copies-To: never') is not the same as
| `set list of recipients to list@blarfl.org'.

Hmmm... okay, I can see that.

| Apparently, MCT offers functionality not present with the Reply-To
| header, even for mail.  Should the (proposed) standard for MCT be
| changed?

No.  Given that handling of mail and news is different, the semantics of
the header would change a little based on the backend.  That is confusing.

Besides, duplicate suppression already covers the issue, I think.
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ Earth, presumably from outer space.