NetBSD-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Release

Greg A. Woods wrote in
 |At Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:23:20 -0500, Greg Troxel <> wrote:
 |Subject: Re: Release
 |> What's messy is the idea that when replying to the list one should send
 |> to *only* the list.  That has some merit, but the standards are murkier
 |> (Mail-Followup-To:) and implementation of them somewhat sparse.
 |Well, no, there's nothing murky about it _in_the_standards_, even going
 |all of the way back to RFC-822.  It's called "Reply-To":
 |     4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
 |        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
 |        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.
 |(To be even more pedantic, "Mail-Followup-To", and the even more bogus
 |"mail-reply-to" are stupid inventions by people who didn't understand
 |RFC 822 clearly enough, and were, in some part, clueless attempts to

We now even have a standardized Author: field (RFC 9057).
I like M-F-T: very much, unfortunately it never became a standard.
M-F-T: is not the same as R-T:, unfortunately i used them as being
equivalent and that is wrong.  Still in the wild.
RFC 9057

   *  Mediators might create a Reply-To: field with the original From:
      field email address.  This facilitates getting replies back to the
      original author, but it does nothing to aid other processing or
      presentation done by the recipient's Mail User Agent (MUA) based
      on what it believes is the author's address or original display
      name.  This Reply-To action represents another knock-on effect
      (e.g., collateral damage) by distorting the meaning of that header
      field, as well as creating an issue if the field already exists.

 |abuse Usenet headers that were somewhat over-specified again by people
 |who apparently didn't understand RFC 822 clearly enough.  Of course some
 |of the problem was exacerbated by software that had been designed and
 |implemented by people who didn't understand (or maybe appreciate) RFC
 |822 clearly enough, which sadly included BSD mail and some mailing list

|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index