Mail-Followup-To

Mail-Followup-To

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

I think Gnus should support
<URL:ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/replyto.html>.  What do
y'all think?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Stephen Zander]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> I think Gnus should support
> <URL:ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/replyto.html>.  What do
> y'all think?

I like it!

-- 
Stephen
---
"Normality is a statistical illusion." -- me

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Richard Coleman]

> I think Gnus should support
> <URL:ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/replyto.html>.  What do
> y'all think?
> 
> (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
>   larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Just as another data point, I'm also supporting this proposal
in the mail client nmh (a successor to MH).  I hear that mutt
and possibly Eudora also are supporting it.

nmh web site is:
http://www.math.gatech.edu/nmh/

--
Richard Coleman
coleman@math.gatech.edu

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

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

> Yes, RFC 822 did not make a distinction between reply-to-author and
> reply-to-list.  These are aspects of the mail client, not the message
> format.  To a well-written MUA, these headers are redundant; the client
> already makes the appropriate distinction.  A badly written MUA, one that
> does not make the distinction, is not going to honor these headers.

Yup.  But there are useful things that can be done with these
headers.  For instance -- on mailing lists where everyone that posts
is assumed to be subscribed (like this one), the listserv could add a
"Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org" header.  It can also be used by the
sender as a way to signal "I am subscribed to the list; don't Cc me or
anybody else".

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Richard Coleman]

> > Yes, RFC 822 did not make a distinction between reply-to-author and
> > reply-to-list.  These are aspects of the mail client, not the message
> > format.  To a well-written MUA, these headers are redundant; the client
> > already makes the appropriate distinction.  A badly written MUA, one that
> > does not make the distinction, is not going to honor these headers.
> 
> Yup.  But there are useful things that can be done with these
> headers.  For instance -- on mailing lists where everyone that posts
> is assumed to be subscribed (like this one), the listserv could add a
> "Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org" header.  It can also be used by the
> sender as a way to signal "I am subscribed to the list; don't Cc me or
> anybody else".

I think the proposal specifically says that mailing list managers
should NOT add this header.

A better scenario is that Gnus have a variable such as
mailing-list-addresses.  When you send a message, it compares the
address to all the addresses in this list, and adds the
"Mail-Followup-To" header if there is a match.

That way, group replies (assuming mail client that is replying
understands this header) would go back to the mailing list.

--
Richard Coleman
coleman@math.gatech.edu

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Justin Sheehy]

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

> Given the premise that a mailing list manager should not set a Reply-To
> header, the lack of such a header means just that.  The existance of
> Reply-To means, "send the mail here instead of to the list".

Um, no.

The existence of a Reply-To: means, "IF you reply to me, send it to
this address instead of the one in the From: header."

It in no way makes a suggestion or mandate regarding someone's
decision whether to followup or to reply.

In a usenet post, the Followup-To: header has a meaning similar to
that which you suggest if its contents are "poster".  However, this is
completely orthogonal to usage of Reply-to: headers.

-- 
Justin Sheehy

In a cloud bones of steel.
  

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

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

> The proposed standard specifically states that a list manager should *NOT*
> do this.

Oops.  I missed that.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Mail-Followup-To

[Jason R Mastaler]

To add to the discussion, here is an argument against Mail-Followup-To
from Keith Moore that appeared on the nmh list today.

------- Forwarded Message 
 
Date:    Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:20:25 -0500 
From:    Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> 
To:      Richard Coleman <coleman@math.gatech.edu> 
cc:      nmh-workers@math.gatech.edu, exmh-users@sunlabs.eng.sun.com, 
         moore@cs.utk.edu 
Subject: Mail-{Reply,Followup}-To considered harmful 
 
 
Please don't implement support for Mail-Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To 
in nmh.  Not only are they nonstandard, they're a poor fix for the  
problem. 
 
Reply-To is widely misinterpreted as the replacement for the From field    
in replies, in such a way that "reply all" goes to Reply-To + To + Cc 
if Reply-To is present and From + To + CC if no Reply-to field 
is present. 
 
RFC 822 has language that appears to support this view.  But a careful 
reading of RFC 822 reveals that this prose does not apply to Reply-To with 
respect to a "reply all" function, but only with the use of Reply-To  
in a "reply to author" function. 
 
This leaves us with the situation where the author of a message is 
unable to specify the complete destination for replies.  Even if 
the author specifies a Reply-To field, if the recipient uses  
"reply all", addresses from the To and CC field are still included.   
This is the behavior implemented by almost every UA in existence,  
but it's almost always the wrong thing to do. 
 
And RFC 822's examples make it clear that Reply-To is intended as 
the *complete* destination for replies, not merely a replacement 
for the From field. 
 
The right way to fix this is to correctly interpret Reply-To - 
not as simply the replacement for the From field in replies, but  
as the reply destination preferred by the author of the subject message. 
 
Adding new headers doesn't fix the problem.  It only makes the 
situation more complex. 

-- 
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>                 http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ 
Citizen of cyberspace, currently residing in Knoxville, TN, US, Earth. 
 
 
------- End of Forwarded Message