At 03:28 PM 12/8/96 EST, "M. LEBLANC" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
[snip]
 
>Hi kids.
>
>Post came to me for review (from rec.music.dylan, the usenet side of the
>gateway), I okayed it -- it looked normal-ish. Here's what I okayed:
 
[snip]
>>From: "Matthew T. Kneidel" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Newsgroups: rec.music.dylan
[snip]
>>Reply-To: 1624, W., Pine, Wichita, KS, 67203
> ^^^^^ ^^  ^^^^  ^   ^^^^  ^^^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^^
 
[snip]
 
>How'd he do it? What's he up to? His Reply-To: line in the message
>submitted to me for review is the key, but how/why did they all assume
>the @listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu address? Anybody???
 
Easy.
 
The RFC's require it.  Think of your own address.  People can probably
write you locally by an address of "turning_pt".  If you (or someone
at your site) sends out mail with "Reply-To: turning_pt" it's supposed
to be converted to a deliverable internet address, most likely
"[log in to unmask]".
 
Obviously, the guy doesn't understand what "Reply-To:" is for.
But since this was apparently originally Usenet, not e-mail, I'm not
sure whether Usenet RFC's or e-mail RFC's apply; I don't think
"Reply-To:" has a Usenet meaning.  If he'd emailed you, you should have
seen something like "[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], ..."  Probably your
listserv *ought* to nuke "Reply-To:" headers from Usenet, and convert
"Followup-To:" to "Reply-To:" (with substitution for "poster") but I
don't know for sure.
 
But given the "Reply-To:" carried through, the outgoing mail filling in
a domain is consistent with RFC e-mail requirements.
 
>I've put a filter on this guy until I understand what he's trying to do.
>Does anyone know of a reason for doing this in ummm... choosing
>my words carefully ... the real world of responsible people acting in
>good faith?
 
Like I said, he probably thought "Reply-To:" was where you put in a snail-
mail address.  The software then behaved as if these words were actual
usernames somewhere, and expanded them at the "appropriate" time.  :-)
 
Doesn't look malicious to me, just ignorance seems to be what's involved.
I would have hoped that LISTSERV could diagnose the situation by now,
but apparently not.
 
Disclaimer: I have little experience with mixing Usenet and mailing lists,
and I don't know what the "rules" are or where they are specified.
 
Cheers,
Stan Ryckman ([log in to unmask])