"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:48:43 -0600: > On 2004-08-08, Tim Connors penned: > > "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004 > > 10:05:12 -0600: > > > > I suggest that gmane is the wrong tool for the job - I;ve heard plenty > > of people say it sucks for mailing lists, and this appears to be > > another case (actually, google seem to be really doing a good job at > > making sucky UIs and not implementing proper protocols - witness > > google groups 2 and how it doesn't set and preserve "References:"; but > > I digress). But anyway... > > It sure sounds like you're claiming that the fact that gmane delivers > messages through the news protocol rather than email is a flaw, rather > than the whole point.
Damn me. Confusing gmail and gmane again. Not even related. But yes, I do exactly the same thing as you. As to your post a second ago, the boht.it unidirectional gateway I use (hence all my mangling) that does the linux.debian.* preserves the "Mail-Copies-To: never", but not the "Mail-followup-to:" one. > Um, no, *I* set mail-copies-to: never. Actually, I guess I'm not sure > what all happens in processing from gmane to mailing list to that > newsgroup, but I would think that this setting is somehow related to my > original headers? gmane seems like it is probably preserving your mail-copies-to and mail-followups-to, but the bofh.it unidirectional gateway (which I know a few people use, I have no idea how many - but since it is only unidirectional, I occasionally see a few people post there, and then wonder why no-one answers them) seems to drop "mail-followups-to" (it's free, I can't complain). But of course, being unidirectional, one has to write scripts so you can reply to the mailing list instead of just to the 5 or so audience in the newsgroup. When one writes scripts, they are likely to lose details such as not replying to people directly - that's what happened to me until someone (you?) alerted me to my mailing. > > Possibly this is why people reply-to you directly. > > Because I ask them not to in my headers? Please explain, cuz I'm not > following you. Did I explain myself better in the above paragraph, this time? > > [1] Even if Reply-To is considered harmful > > (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html), and causes some > > mailers to drop the mailing list off the list of CCs, and will end up > > replying only to your single bogus address. > > Your link seems to talk exclusively about lists admins setting reply-to > for the whole list, which isn't the case with my emails: > > "The Reply-To header was not invented on a whim. It is there for the > sender of a mail message to use. If you stomp on this header, you can > lose important information." > > Is the behavior of dropping the mailing list part of the spec? I guess > I assumed that a reply-to should only be used, you know, when you're > actually replying. Was I wrong? If I understand things properly, if I subscribe to debian-user, and I reply to your message if you use a bogus "reply-to", then my mail will simply consist of a recipient of "To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>". I will then have to go and manually substitute "To: debian-user". Also, if I understand correctly, this will effect *everyone*, not just those of us using silly mail/news clients. Then again, I also do recall something about mailing list software that looks at your "reply-to", and massages it in an appropriate way to end up with effectively what you want. I don't know. -- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ So y'know, when the girl octopus slaps the boy octopus for being too forward, he could say it wasn't his fault, the arm just kind of did its own thing. -- Kasatka in AFAFDA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
