3 Feb
2000
3 Feb
'00
4:14 a.m.
The best text on the subject i've seen is ``Reply-To'' Munging Considered
Harmful by Chip Rosenthal.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
And the rebuttle: http://www.metasystema.org/reply-to-useful.mhtml
I personally like Reply-To: set to the mailing list. All the lists I'm on
are set up that way and there have been no problems that I could see (yes,
you see the occasional private message sent but it's not that big a
problem). 
3 Feb
3 Feb
6:59 a.m.
Well, Phillip already said most of the relevant Mail.
So here's my ME-TOO-NOT-LIKE-THE-NEW mail:
>> The best text on the subject i've seen is
``Reply-To'' Munging Considered
>> Harmful by Chip Rosenthal.
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> And the rebuttle:
http://www.metasystema.org/reply-to-useful.mhtml
> I personally like Reply-To: set to the mailing
list. All the lists I'm on
> are set up that way and there have been no problems that I could see (yes,
> you see the occasional private message sent but it's not that big a
> problem).
Hello again everyone! Good to be back!
Same here :) I already got a nervous breakdown, seeing that while I
have been 5 days over the ocean just 27 'new' messages arrived !
I have read both the above web articles. I'd like
to cast my vote in favour of
REPLY-TO: == THE LIST
1. I don't want to receive two messages when
someone replies to me and the list
2. With the old system, if someone forgot to change
the header, there was a
spurious message, which I deleted. Some people might object to the waste of
bandwidth, but it merely gave me one extra message to delete.
With the new system, if someone forgets to change the
header, the information
doesn't reach the list. This causes a bigger waste of bandwidth, because you
get more people answering the same question, not having seen each other's
replies. And it stifles discussion, because replies-to-replies often never get
generated (and these are sometimes the most useful).
I just answered to Philips Mail, and only becaus I checked to be shure
I recogniced that the list wasn't at all in the TO or CC headers !
So the new method gives less info to the list for more
use of bandwidth. IMHO,
not good.
Like resending mails
I am on several lists, of which about half work the
old way (reply to the list
by default). This is very convenient on all of them. Of the others, on the one
where I have asked questions I have received substantially the same reply
privately from several people, but the discussion hasn't borne fruit on the
list.
Also my mailer (Pegasus/Win) just offers the ordinary 'reply' button.
No selectable stuff, so I have to edit. End if you take a look at
Ethans Mail: he is using some Web service, sending out dual mails ..
And I REALY hate duplicate mails ... especialy when produced due
uncommon machine features. As with all machine made decision you
have a variety between right and wrong, and Reply-To enshures that
the percentage of unwanted messages is way lower than the 'new'
way.
Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
only real chance to go along.
Gruss
H.
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
6:05 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:00:33PM +0000, Hans Franke (Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de) wrote:
Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
only real chance to go along.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822 specifies that the Reply-To:
is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to
suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify?
-Rich
--
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625
------------------------- rich(a)alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------
7:23 a.m.
(I just had to retype the mail, since my mailer did only reply to Rich)
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:00:33PM +0000, Hans Franke
(Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de) wrote:
> Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
> only real chance to go along.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822
specifies that the Reply-To:
is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to
suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify?
As spc already cited (sp?) RFC 822 4.4.3 (paralell while I answered),
he missed out the 'Note' you're going on. Just to put up the question
who is the originator. Well, the originator is maybe the person who
did send the mail ... or is it Majordomo ? Since Majordomo is not only
a forwarding thing, but rather processing the mail and generating a
new one. Anyway, I think this is advocates talk. Even if I'd agree to
set the prior sender to be the originator (*1), The forwarding/list
service should provide the service of setting reply-to as a courtsy
to all te other users - if the 'originator' forgot to do so. Just as
an usage of the Best-Possible-Result rule.
Gruss
H.
*1 - just to come up with the question if, in this case, if the first
sender is the originator, then, why are there different originators
for all follow up replys ? They are just 'some black boxes' processing
the information and generating new mails :))
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
7:27 a.m.
NOBODY had any serious difficulty using the old system.
SOME people have some difficulty with the new system.
SOME people find the old system to be more convenient.
SOME people find the new system to be more convenient.
But that is NOT due to any intrinsic advantage, it is due to being a
better fit with THEIR mail programs.
Over the years, I have gotten a LOT of flack for using "obsolete"
computers. Even on this list!
Over the years, I have gotten a LOT of flack for using "obsolete"
software. Even on this list!
Now, the folk who only use NEW programs have instituted a change that
provides a trivially greater level of conveneince for them, at the cost of
a mild level of inconvenience for those of us using OLD systems.
On MOST lists, the answer is obvious: dump those who use OLD stuff. Is
that the answer here, also?
I will put up with the inconvenience because of the great people and
discussions here. Even those of you who are COMPLETELY WRONG on this
issue :-)
For SEVERAL reasons, my access here is through telnet and PINE on the ISP.
That doesn't give me much opportunity to rewrite, debug, or alter features
or characteristics of the mail program. I'm stuck with whatever version
of PINE the ISP is currently using.
I have a completely separate set of access for web browsing.
Some people say, "I'm on thousands of mailing lists, and they ALL use the
OLD way."
Some people say, "I'm on thousands of mailing lists, and they ALL use the
NEW way."
There must be a LOT of mailing lists to have so little overlap :-)
One of the issues is consequence of error. Under OLD system, occasionally
a message that was intended to be private went public. Under the NEW
system, a large number of messages that were intended to be public will go
private, and MANY (maybe MOST) messages will have DUPLICATES. Each person
has their own opinion of the cost/benefit analysis of THAT issue.
But none of that is the real problem. There simply needs to be a simple
and easy choice between REPLY TO AUTHOR v REPLY TO LIST. On old PINE,
that is what you have (a Y/N for using REPLY TO: v FROM:). On the NEW
software, instead, the choices appear to be REPLY TO AUTHOR v REPLY TO
BOTH AUTHOR AND LIST. Perhaps some rethinking is needed in the "NEW" mail
programs??????
I, too, HATE html-mail! But the version of PINE that I'm using on THIS
ISP handles it well! (Although in the same "upgrade", they completely and
totally BROKE LYNX :-( )
But I want to thank MOST folk for becoming conscious of the fact that NOT
every mail program is internally linked to a browser. THANK YOU for
providing a one sentence explanation of any URLs that you post (rather
than the old "Check out: http://www.obscure.nul")
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
7:37 a.m.
"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
NOBODY had any serious difficulty using the old
system.
SOME people have some difficulty with the new system.
I disagree. I found the old system to be quite annoying. Every time I
wanted to send a private reply, I had to grovel around in the headers to
find the right address. As everyone has noticed, this often led to
replys intended to be private winding up on the list.
So I don't think it's accurate to say that "NOBODY had any..."
10:42 a.m.
New subject: On Reply-To: munging from RFC-822, section 4.4.3 (page 22)
It was thus said that the Great Rich Lafferty once stated:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:00:33PM +0000, Hans Franke (Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de) wrote:
Just in case you missed it last time (from RFC-822, available via
ftp://nis.nsf.net/documents/rfc/rfc0822.txt , page 22):
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.
That last sentance allows majordomo to ``munge'' the Reply-To: field. If
you want, I can even send you the RFC in question.
-spc (Any questions?)
Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
only real chance to go along.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822 specifies that the Reply-To:
is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to
suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify?
11:07 a.m.
New subject: On Reply-To: munging from RFC-822, section 4.4.3 (page 22)
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:42:45PM -0500, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
(spc(a)armigeron.com) wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Rich Lafferty once
stated:
You left out the context of that passage, which describes how the
*originator* can use the Reply-To header. Majordomo is not the
originator of messages sent to the list, it's the sender. RFC 822 also
specifies
Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and
serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path"
field is used to identify a path back to the origina-
tor.
Although I'm starting to wonder if this isn't symptomatic of a
majordomo bug, or at least a design flaw. It would make sense to me to
configure Majordomo such that the Reply-To points to the list *unless*
the originator added its own Reply-To, in which case it would leave
that there. That way, you'd have discussion on the list except when
the original poster intended otherwise, which strikes me as something
that the original poster might very well want. This would satisfy the
objection of lost information (which strikes me as the only thing that isn't
a question of preference or user-agent configuration -- when majordomo
strips a reply-to, it's *gone*) and the objection of encouraging
public discussion (in that unless otherwise specified by the originator,
the reply is directed to the list).
I don't believe that this is possible with current majordomo, but I'm
really not sure *why*. Does anyone know? If not, I think I might
throw together a patch for this. (Would we want it? If nothing else
I'll use it locally..)
While trying to figure out why, I came across the following in the
majordomo FAQ which might be worth considering:
The most important reason why Reply-To: to the list is bad is that it
can cause mail loops if any of the members of your list are running
fairly-common but broken software which doesn't know what an envelope
address is. (Many Microsoft products, as well as many other PC-based
non-SMTP/Internet mail systems which work through an SMTP gateway.)
I don't have any of those systems to find out what they're talking
about, though. Or are they just referring to autoresponders?
-Rich
--
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625
------------------------- rich(a)alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:00:33PM +0000, Hans Franke (Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de) wrote:
Just in case you missed it last time (from RFC-822, available via
ftp://nis.nsf.net/documents/rfc/rfc0822.txt , page 22):
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.
That last sentance allows majordomo to ``munge'' the Reply-To: field. If
you want, I can even send you the RFC in question.
Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
only real chance to go along.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822 specifies that the Reply-To:
is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to
suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify?
11:46 a.m.
New subject: On Reply-To: munging from RFC-822, section 4.4.3 (page 22)
It was thus said that the Great Rich Lafferty once stated:
That note comes from section 4.3.1, which covers RETURN-PATH. But this
now hinges on what you (or RFC-822) means by ``originator.'' I interpret
that to mean the mailing list software. I (originator #1) send a message to
the list. That in turn accepts the mail, then turns around and then becomes
originator #2 in sending a copy out to the recipients of the list.
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:42:45PM -0500, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
(spc(a)armigeron.com) wrote:
>
> Just in case you missed it last time (from RFC-822, available via
> ftp://nis.nsf.net/documents/rfc/rfc0822.txt , page 22):
>
> 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
[ snip ]
That last
sentance allows majordomo to ``munge'' the Reply-To: field. If
you want, I can even send you the RFC in question.
You left out the context of that passage, which describes how the
*originator* can use the Reply-To header. Majordomo is not the
originator of messages sent to the list, it's the sender. RFC 822 also
specifies
Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and
serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path"
field is used to identify a path back to the origina-
tor. Although I'm starting to wonder if this isn't
symptomatic of a
majordomo bug, or at least a design flaw. It would make sense to me to
configure Majordomo such that the Reply-To points to the list *unless*
the originator added its own Reply-To, in which case it would leave
that there.
To me that sounds reasonable, but that still means you have to be careful
in replying privately to a message send publically without an explicit
Reply-To: added by the original sender.
While trying to figure out why, I came across the
following in the
majordomo FAQ which might be worth considering:
The most important reason why Reply-To: to the list is bad is that it
can cause mail loops if any of the members of your list are running
fairly-common but broken software which doesn't know what an envelope
address is. (Many Microsoft products, as well as many other PC-based
non-SMTP/Internet mail systems which work through an SMTP gateway.)
I don't have any of those systems to find out what they're talking
about, though. Or are they just referring to autoresponders?
You got me there. My experience has only been with Unix based tools.
-spc (The Devil is in the details, eh?)
11:24 a.m.
New subject: On Reply-To: munging from RFC-822, section 4.4.3 (page 22)
There's an obvious solution to this problem which will satisfy
(almost) everyone.
Set up two lists, one with each behavior. Arrange for a single address
to mail postings, which get distributed to both lists. (It would be bad
to have two addresses, as inevitably someone would send the same postings
to both.)
Each individual subscriber can choose which header style he or she desires
by subscribing to the appropriate list.
This requires a bit more work (one time) on the part of the system
administrator (Jay). I'd be willing to help with that.
(This would be even easier with mailing list software that sent each message
separately per subscriber, as is done by Ezmlm. But I don't think Majordomo
works that way.)
12:55 p.m.
New subject: On Reply-To: munging from RFC-822, section 4.4.3 (page 22)
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 10:24:09PM -0000, Eric Smith wrote:
There's an obvious solution to this problem which
will satisfy
(almost) everyone.
Set up two lists, one with each behavior. Arrange for a single address
to mail postings, which get distributed to both lists. (It would be bad
to have two addresses, as inevitably someone would send the same postings
to both.)
Each individual subscriber can choose which header style he or she desires
by subscribing to the appropriate list.
That's *such* a good idea! I was going to suggest modifying the list server
to have user-settable preferences and giving everyone the exact headers they
want, but no one would ever get around to doing that (certainly not me, any
time soon!). But making it two separate lists would take no time at all...
Plus this flamewar could go away since people wouldn't have to agree after
all!
John Wilson
D Bit
7:09 a.m.
Prelude to this reply:
Cursor Up
Cursor Up
Cursor Up
Cursor Up
Cursor Up
Cut Line
Cursor Down
Cut Line
Cursor Down
Uncut Line
Cursor Down
Cursor Down
Cursor Down
Cursor Down
2. With the old system, if someone forgot to change
the header, there was a
spurious message, which I deleted. Some people might object to the waste of
bandwidth, but it merely gave me one extra message to delete.
With the new system, if someone forgets to change the header, the
information doesn't reach the list. This causes a bigger waste of
bandwidth, because you get more people answering the same question,
not having seen each other's replies. And it stifles discussion,
because replies-to-replies often never get generated (and these are
sometimes the most useful).
<singing>Exactly!</singing>
And I guarantee you that if the list stays the way it is there will be so
many duplicate messages flying about that those of us against the current
system will be getting huffy all the time, constantly bitching to the list
about it, which will result in more flame wars than were ever sparked by
my bad attitude.
And to reiterate, I think the most important point is that THE DISCUSSION
WILL INEVITABLY SPLINTER OFF INTO PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS AND THIS DOES NOT
BENEFIT THE LIST WHATSOEVER, not to mention future generations who will
quite possibly miss a LOT of great information that could have been
archived from public messages but instead was lost to time since the
replies were private.
This list is archived in at least two places that I know of:
Classic Computers Mailing List Archives
http://www.heydon.org/kevan/mlists/classiccmp/
(currently down according to Kevan's previous message)
Classic Computers Mailing List Searchable Archives
http://mail-index.nice.ru/classiccmp/wgindex.html
This is an EXTRAORDINARILY valuable resource that will be diminished if
many excellent replies to many good questions are administered in private
discussions.
Humankind does not gain by having to ask the same questions over and over
again, only to have to repeat the work that someone already did to answer
the question.
I am on several lists, of which about half work the
old way (reply to
the list by default). This is very convenient on all of them. Of the
others, on the one where I have asked questions I have received
substantially the same reply privately from several people, but the
discussion hasn't borne fruit on the list.
In other words, that information is effectively lost to time. That's
shameful, considering our collective mission is to preserve information.
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
VCF East? VCF Europe!? YOU BETCHA!!
Stay tuned for more information
or contact me to find out how you can participate
http://www.vintage.org
8:14 a.m.
At 10:09 AM 2/3/00 -0800, DASTAR COM wrote:
In other words, that information is effectively lost to time. That's
shameful, considering our collective mission is to preserve information.
Why hasn't anyone else piped up about the usefulness and reliability
of using punched cards and paper tape to archive the mailing list
as well as compose replies? My mail header may claim to say I use
Eudora, but I actually use an ASR-33, sending tapes to my ISP for delivery.
- John
9:42 a.m.
(just realized that I did send this mail only to Eric
- just I keep copies since the last failure ... not
exactly a user friendly solution)
"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)"
<cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
> NOBODY had any serious difficulty using the old system.
> SOME people have some difficulty with the new system.
I disagree. I found the old system to be quite
annoying. Every time I
wanted to send a private reply, I had to grovel around in the headers to
find the right address. As everyone has noticed, this often led to
replys intended to be private winding up on the list.
So I don't think it's accurate to say that
"NOBODY had any..."
If you send more replys via PM than to the list you may be right.
I'd still go for a 'least possible effort' rule - and my majority
of replys goes direct to the list. Shure, I also did sometimes miss
to change the To part (and I still apology therefore) but thats way
more rare than the other way.
(oh and note the 'serious' part you left out)
Servus
Hans
9:51 a.m.
New subject: Keydisc?
Why hasn't anyone else piped up about the
usefulness and reliability
of using punched cards and paper tape to archive the mailing list
as well as compose replies? My mail header may claim to say I use
Eudora, but I actually use an ASR-33, sending tapes to my ISP for delivery.
This makes me curious, anybody have, or care about the Keydisc consoles
that replaced keypunch for a lot of data entry?
10:40 a.m.
New subject: Keydisc?
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Mike Ford wrote:
Well... while I don't have one (tho it would look kool next to my '029), I
do have (fond?) memories of working on one back in my data entry days...
As well as some interesting(?) key to tape machines when I was doing data
entry at Farmers Insurance.
(eek! another bit of my sordid past leaks out...)
...and does anyone besides me think that the IBM 129 on eBay with the
$1500.00 reserve (I think thats the amount I saw quoted) is just a bit
'out there'?
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org || jimw(a)agora.rdrop.com
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
Why hasn't
anyone else piped up about the usefulness and reliability
of using punched cards and paper tape to archive the mailing list
as well as compose replies? My mail header may claim to say I use
Eudora, but I actually use an ASR-33, sending tapes to my ISP for delivery.
This makes me curious, anybody have, or care about the Keydisc consoles
that replaced keypunch for a lot of data entry?
8931
days inactive
8931
days old
15 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dastar＠siconic.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jimw＠agora.rdrop.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
Philip.Belben＠powertech.co.uk -
rich＠alcor.concordia.ca -
spc＠armigeron.com -
wilson＠dbit.dbit.com