Thread hijacking

[Christopher Chan]

NoOp wrote:
> On 12/16/2009 05:05 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> NoOp wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2009 10:16 AM, Alan McKay wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:
>>>>> What's the point of a mailing list if private/direct replies should be
>>>>> the norm?
>>>> It seems to be the RFC purists who drag out this bit of nonsense from
>>>> time-to-time on most of the lists out there.
>>>>
>>>> The RFC clearly states that replies should be to the individual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Can you please cite the RFC? Not disputing, just curious & would like to
>>> read it. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This should explain it.
>>
>> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>>
>> Relevant portion if you do not wish to read the whole thing.
>>
>> "In April of 2001, the IETF issued af new document, RFC 2822, which 
>> obsoletes RFC 822. In this new RFC, the author addresses the Reply-To 
>> header field in a few places, but the most relevant to this discussion 
>> is the following in section 3.6.2 "Originator fields":
>>
>>      When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) 
>> to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent."
>>
>>
>> Another portion of the article for those who say 2822 is old and obsolete.
>>
>> "How to specify where to post list messages
>>
>> RFC 2369 specifies, in section 3.4, the List-Post header field:
>>
>>      The List-Post field describes the method for posting to the list. 
>> This is typically the address of the list, but MAY be a moderator, or 
>> potentially some other form of submission. For the special case of a 
>> list that does not allow posting (e.g., an announcements list), the 
>> List-Post field may contain the special value "NO".
>>
>> Modern mail list software sets this header field, or provides some 
>> mechanism for the administrator to set it."
>>
> 
> Well, I've had a look and I suppose others with better understanding of
> lists can comment (and yes I do indeed know the RFC system), but maybe
> I'm not understanding. This list seems to comply:

Well, yes, it has the List-Post header and so I can make use of the 
Reply lit button but that does not guarantee that all replies will go 
back to the list which I believe is what the owners of the list want. I 
had to get an addon to get a Reply list button. If the muas are not 
keeping up with RFCs, list admins that want a mailing list that is used 
for group discussion do not really have much choice but to do Reply-To: 
munging.

> 
>> Precedence: list
>> Reply-To: "Ubuntu user technical support,
>> 	not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>> List-Id: "Ubuntu user technical support,
>> 	not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users.lists.ubuntu.com>
>> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
>> 	<mailto:ubuntu-users-request at lists.ubuntu.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>> List-Archive: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users>
>> List-Post: <mailto:ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>> List-Help: <mailto:ubuntu-users-request at lists.ubuntu.com?subject=help>
>> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
>> 	<mailto:ubuntu-users-request at lists.ubuntu.com?subject=subscribe>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Sender: ubuntu-users-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Errors-To: ubuntu-users-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
> 
> And again, not disputing, just trying to understand that issue.

There is no issue. Just some who are continually harping about the 
sounder list settings.

> 
> But then again, I suppose that discussing this further in this thread is
> indeed 'Thread hijacking' eh :-) Perhaps we can start a new thread over
> in sounder to discuss further. Thanks for the info & we now return back
> to 'Thread hijacking'... :-)
> 

This has already been brought up there. No point. sounder has a 
different purpose from ubuntu-users so it has RFC compliant. Oh, so is 
ubuntu-devel-discuss btw. No Reply-To: munging there. Therefore, those 
who complain about sounder's setup, please, please just drop it.