[Sheflug] reply-to and this list?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Ross" == Ross's Mail <ross.h [at] ntlworld.com> writes:

    Ross> i recently read (well... bits of :-)RFC 2822 this led to a
    Ross> discusion about mailing lists not being the origonator of
    Ross> the mail we all recieve and hence doesn't comply with the
    Ross> RFC (ie reply-to should have the senders email address).

<lecture content="HOWTO RTFRFC">
You have to read RFCs as though they were pseudo-code.  They are.
</lecture>

   3.6.2. Originator fields

   The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the
   sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field.
[...]

   The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
   message.

I guess this is what you have in mind?  But this is generic, referring
to all three originator fields.  Don't rely on this kind of statement
very much, it is superseded by anything more specific.

             The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
   that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
   for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
   mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
   message.

I don't see much room here for Reply-To to provide additional
information about "actual" originators.

   The originator fields also provide the information required when
   replying to a message.  When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
   indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
   that replies be sent.  In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
   replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
   "From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
   reply.

And that makes it explicit.  The From field is dual-purpose.  Primary
is to indicate where the message came from.  Secondary is to indicate
where replies should go to.  If these purposes conflict, then you use
Reply-To to indicate where _you_ want replies to go.

    Ross> don't get me wrong, i much prefer the current setup and am
    Ross> not looking to have it changed.

Ie, _you_ want replies to go to the listserv.  I see no problem.  ;-)

IMHO, a good listserv MAY add but MUST NOT delete Reply-To
information.  Thus, if you really want direct replies, you should be
able to add "Reply-To: me [at] where.i.is" to your headers, and get a
reply.  If the listserv wants, it can edit that to

Reply-To: me [at] where.i.is,
          ml [at] busybody.ac.uk

    Ross> just currious as to how this and other lists (kde,fltk...) 
    Ross> all prevent this type of 'valid' bounced mail effecting the
    Ross> list.

Bounces should _never_ go to Reply-To.  Reply-To in "business" mail is
very possibly a "no-sysdmin-skills-provided" secretary, or worse yet
the "no-computer-skills-provided" CEO Hizself.  According to RFC 2821,

   If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the
   receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message.  The
   recipient of this notification MUST be the address from the envelope
   return path (or the Return-Path: line).  However, if this address
   is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a notification.

The point of quoting here after Richard explained it, more than
adequately, is to show again how the standard is designed to provide
overrides and protections.  SMTP mail is not well-formed if there's no
envelope sender, so what's Return-Path for?  (1) An alternative way to
specify the error return destination.  Generally we like the SMTP
envelope sender (MAIL FROM) to correspond to the RFC 2822 Sender.  (2)
A way to specify that there should not be an error notification (eg,
to prevent loops where an error notification causes an error, ad
infinitum).

The `vacation' program is another matter.  I hate those things....


-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.