mail to individuals

[Odd]

Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu) wrote:
> On Wed, September 30, 2009 12:16, Odd wrote:
> 
>>> But it is broken according to the standards docs.
>> So you keep saying. And yet, where is it defined as a STANDARD?
>>
>>>> Not all RFCs are standards. Btw, could you point me to the RFC
>>>> concerning this topic?
>>>>
>>> RFC 2822 is the standard in question. it's an IETF draft from 2001. it
>>> obseletes RFC 822 from 1982, and clearly states that the reply-to field
>>>  should indicate the mailbox of the AUTHOR of the document. Since the
>>> mailing list processor isn't the author...
>> A draft you say? How is a draft a standard?
> 
>> I would like you to point out, since you've said it so many times now,
>> _where_ exactly this reply-to policy is defined as a STANDARD. Can you do
>>  that, please?
> 
> 
> True: not every RFC (Request for Comments) is adopted as a standard by the
> IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Let's review some basic knowledge
> about RFCs.
> 
> An RFC can have one of the following statuses:
> * Informational
> * Experimental
> * Best Current Practice
> * Standards Track
> * Historic
> 
> Standards-track documents are further divided into:
> * Proposed Standard
> * Draft Standard
> * Internet Standard
> 
> RFC 2822 was mentioned, but that was obsoleted by RFC 5322 (october 2008).
> 
> What is the IETF status of RFC 5322?
> RFC 5322 is a draft for the Internet Standard track. Not a full standard,
> so we fall back to the RFC that it wants to obsolete, RFC 2822.
> 
> What is the IETF status of RFC 2822?
> RFC 2822 is a draft for the Internet Standard track. Not a full standard,
> so we fall back to the RFC that it wants to obsolete, RFC 0822.
> 
> What is the IETF status of RFC 0822?
> RFC 0822 is a full standard for the Internet Standard track. It is STD 11:
> STD 11 (RFC0822) STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES
>     D. Crocker, August 1982. STANDARD (Obsoletes RFC0733) (Obsoleted by
> RFC2822) (Updated by RFC1123 RFC2156 RFC1327 RFC1138 RFC1148),
> txt=103K
> List of full standards: http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/stdlist.html
> 
> Then we compare RFC 0822, RFC 2822 and RFC 5322 on the matter of the
> sender address. If a draft standard defines something identical to the
> full standard that it obsoletes, then the new draft standard may be
> considered the official standard on that specific subject.
> 
> 
> RFC 0822:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822#section-4.4
> 
> 
> The relevant sections of RFC 2822 and RFC 5322 are almost identical except
> for formatting:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.6.2
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case of a message from Odd to sounder, we see the following headers:
> 
> From: Odd <iodine at runbox.no>
> To: Sounder <sounder at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Sender: sounder-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
> 
>>From = person who wrote the mail
> To = persons who read the mail
> Sender = person/entity who sends the mail on behalf of the author
> 
> According to RFC 822:
>             o   The  "Sender"  field  mailbox  should  NEVER  be  used
>                 automatically, in a recipient's reply message.
>             o   If there is a "From" field, but no  "Reply-To"  field,
>                 the  reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated
>                 in the "From" field.
> 
> According to RFC 2822/5322:
>    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.
> (snip)
>    If a reply is sent to a message
>    that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy of
>    the reply to all of the recipients of the message, in addition to the
>    author.  When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and
>    "Cc:" fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of
>    the reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the
>    reply.
> (snip)
>    Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that
>    include the destination addresses of the original message in the
>    destination addresses of the reply.  How those reply commands behave
>    is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking that the From-header gets mangled? I don't want that! I
> want to know who wrote a message.

Just as an example, on another list I'm on, the Reply-To goes to the
mailing list. The From header still contain the author's address. So
what's the problem?

> Or are you asking that a Reply-To-header is added?

Yes.

> Who should add that
> header: the author of the email (Odd) or the sender-on-behalf
> (sounder-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com)?

The sender-on-behalf.

> It wouldn't be foolproof because mail clients are allowed to ignore a
> Reply-To-header. Reply-To is only a suggestion.

I've yet to use a mailer that do not respect it.

> What else do you suggest to fix your problem?

Why do you think I have a problem? I just want the list to function
as it should if it were set up sanely.

Thanks for the above, btw.

-- 
Odd