Davis, Iain E. said:
>> In my experience, the more technically adept the members
>
> So your desire is to restrict the discussion about Brust's fiction to
> the technically adept?
My point is exactly what I said. *In my experience* those that
understand, don't munge. I wouldn't restrict a thing. To suggest
that I would is namecalling, not debate.
>> of a list
>> are, the more likely they are to do things *this* way,
>> that is, NOT
>> to munge the reply-to headers. Yes, some lists of geeks munge
>> headers. Many do not.
>
> I think you're making huge assumptions about the configurations of
> lists. Without some effort of surveying "all" (which is probably not
> worthwhile) lists in existance, I wouldn't be bold enough to say that
> either configuration had the "many" or "majority" position. :)
I never said majority, I said many. If you disagree that thousands
qualify as "many", that's something else entirely. I didn't even
claim a plurality, though I'd *hope* that's the case.
>> Sourceforge.net hosts THOUSANDS of mailing lists- their policy is
>> not to munge.
>
> That's not necessarily an indicator...Yahoo! Groups probably has lists
> in the "thousands", and the Reply-To is configurable, I'm sure the other
> providers of similar services are similarly configuraable.
Ahh... I get upbraided for "many", but you're "sure" about all
other providers that are not equal to Yahoo! Groups?
Presumptuous, aren't we?
> Additionally, Sourceforge's intended audience is different from that of
> a fan-list. Hmm. Also, with sourceforge, you have to be careful not to
> confuse "forum" with "mailing list". They provide _both_, and the
> forums have "subscription" functionality, which send you copies of the
> posts to those forums you subscribe...which you can't reply to at all
> from your mailer. Even more obnoxious than the reply-to of this list
> (to the point that I only monitor those discussions, because it requires
> too much time and effort for me to reply).
I am well aware of the difference between the two, and again
speak of their mailing lists, of which I am an admin of many
well familiar.
> However, I can see why you wanted to comment on "how many do it this way
> or that". Because I appeared to be. My intent was to indicate not "how
> many lists in the world do this way" but how many that *I* have to deal
> with. Since I have to make a "mental exception" for this list, I have
> _often_ not replied, or aborted a reply, because a) I'm often in a hurry
> when doing e-mail and b) I instinctively used "reply" instead of
> "reply-to-all" and simply gave up, because it exceeded my effort/time
> level. *chuckle*. Then again, you may regard that as a "feature",
> that'd be less noise from me! ;)
It's only noise when you're incorrectly attributing ideas and
claims to me that I do not hold or make. The rest is just
discussion. :)
>> Go one step further. Some putz puts a "vacation" autoresponder
>> on their email address, responding to EVERY message they get for
>> the week they're not checking their mail. Every message goes to
>> the list, and causes a mail loop. Bad Juju. (Yes, many smart
>> mailing list packages have patches to avoid this... but just as
>> not all email clients aren't smart enough to handle "reply to
>> list," so are not all mailing lists able to handle loops.
>> If we're catering to mediocrity, we'd best do so on both sides.)
>
> I'm not sure this is relevant. It's bringing in a completely separate
> issue: Do's and Don'ts of auto-responder/vacation replies.
> And nearly in the same breath, you present the correct solution to the
> problem. Either change the list-processor to prevent e-mail loops of
> the type you describe, or replace it with one that does. :)
It's merely another example of why reply-to munging is dangerous.
Same issue, another supporting point for my argument.
> There are other causes of mail loops (misconfigured SMTP servers come to
> mind) besides vacation replies. :)
I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you there, and never claimed
different... I'm not sure this is relevant. ;)
> Also, adding a patch or modification to a _server_ to improve
> functionality is preferable to forcing users to use your idea of the
> "correct mailer" to achieve that same functionality. If it is possible
> to fix a problem at the server, it is likely that it should be. :)
I didn't say correct, I said compliant. :)
-Rick