On Wed, 21 Jul 93 19:39:47 -0700 Brent Chapman said on List-Managers:
>By the way, do we really need to keep Cc'ing this discussion to 4
>different mailing lists? I don't even recognize the ones other than
>List-Managers; which (if any) of these lists are really appropriate
>for this discussion?
I started crossposting this thread to all lists I thought relevant,
since there didn't seem to be a single most suited list.
As I see it, the most relevant lists are:
LISTSRV-L Revised LISTSERV only
ListNix TULP only
Unix-Listserv ListProcessor only
List-Managers General re the Unix MLMs?
(?) Majordomo
(?) (?)
I'll gladly restrict my postings to one list and Cc those who are
interested but not on that list (hoping the others interested will
include that CC-ed group), as soon as some consensus is reached.
In the meantime, I hope you don't mind this crossposting too much.
Also, as far as I know, items posted to a non-private mailing list
or to Netnews are considered public postings, therefore free to be
cross/re-posted to other lists/groups. Am I wrong?
Your suggestions re the above are most welcome; I don't want to bug
people not interested any more than absolutely necessary.
To restate the subject of my question:
For all MLMs, a consistent header which from the point-of-view
of the casual subscriber:
1: Shows "this posting is from list 'listname'", regardless of
how the item got to that list.
2: Shows "what is this list's reply-to address".
3: Combines (1) and (2) in a single header.
4: Can be used by a MUA for reply-to-list functionality.
A posting from Eric reminded me that the subject line doesn't cover
my real question, so after the false start, I'd better come up with
a decent title... Suggestions?
To me point (3) is so obvious (to the casual list subscriber) as to
be completely redundant. If I'm wrong, *please* break the bad news
to me HARD & FAST, if only to get it over with. :-)
># Take a user (unlikely to know of RFC-822 etc.) reading a LISTSERV
># ...
># Still, it's clear to heesh that telling the MUA to reply-to-SENDER
># is a valid assumption, especially after having seen a couple of
># ...
># All this without knowing of RFC-822 etc.
>The "Sender:" field is where well-behaved mailers send bounces. Thus,
>you _don't_ want to use your "submit-posting-addr" as the "Sender:"
>field.
First, please define "mailer". I know what the terms MUA (Mail User)
Agent) and MTA (Mail Transport Agent) mean, and it confuses me that
"mailer" seems usable in both senses.
Second, what EXACTLY does "bounce" mean? I've seen it used to mean
"resend item to a new recipient as if I never saw it" and as "return
item to <somewhere> because of some error".
Third, Eric posted a quote of the definition of "Sender:" from what
looks suspiciously like RFC-822, and I include it here.
> 4.4.2. SENDER / RESENT-SENDER
> This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT
> (person, system or process) that sends the message. It is
> intended for use when the sender is not the author of the mes-
> sage, or to indicate who among a group of authors actually
> sent the message.
For experts on RFC-822, MLMs, and email, I can understand that
"Sender:" MIGHT not necessarily cover ANY of the points in my
question.
However, for the casual mailing list subscriber who does NOT know
(of) RFC-822 (NOR SHOULD THEY BE EXPECTED TO!), "Sender:" as used
by Revised LISTSERV and ListProcessor certainly would cover all my
points.
Since imho we should be concerned about how the casual USERS of
email in general see it, the issue of "Sender:" remains a hot topic.
Note that if I forward an item I received, *I* feel that it would
be very appropriate to have the author's name/addr remain in the
"From:", with the values for me going into "Sender:".
Either that, or use "From:" for the author, and use "Resent-From:"
for my name/addr. The difference between those two is too vague to
me as casual user to be meaningful. Therefore, *I* would find it
entirely valid to see "Resent-From:" or "Sender:" used to cover all
four points in my question.
Erm.. I could go for "Sender:" if from a list, but "Resent-From:"
if a PERSON forwards the item. Though what "Resent-Sender:" could
mean would imho be a mystery to the casual list/email user.
If we limit ourselves to headers already defined (in RFC-822), the
"Sender:" or "Resent-From:" would be the most appropriate choices.
The way "To:" is used by Revised LISTSERV and ListProcessor makes
it another possible choice.
However, taking into account the casual user, it would seem that
limiting oneself to RFC-822 doesn't allow a good solution to the
problem. The introduction of "List:" for that purpose would then
be more appropriate, imho.
>If you've got something automated on the -request address,
>like the "request-answer" script that comes with Majordomo, then you
>don't want "Sender:" to be the "-request" address; you want those
>bounces to come to a person, not the thing that sends the recording to
>users who send to the "-request" address.
Since both "-request"/"request-" and "-owner"/"owner-" are defined
to reflect neither "submit-posting-addr" nor "this-is-from-listname+
addr", I don't see the relevance of our comment. But I left it in
pending definition of "bounce" and "mailer".
># Exception: Majordomo puts "listname-request" in the "Sender:" line,
># which after some time might trigger heesh to sort of "block off" the
># "-request" part in order to determine the <submit-posting-addr>.
>Majordomo does nothing of the sort. Majordomo does NOT handle stuff
>sent to a list; it only handles maintenance of the list of names itself.
>The Majordomo distribution _does_ include a little script called
>"resend" that folks can use to do header hacking on their mailing
>lists. How "resend" is configured is completely up to the person
>setting up the aliases. People are perfectly free to use something
>other than "resend" to do their header hacking.
Oh. Then maybe I have been misusing the term MLM all along?
I thought the basic functionality of an MLM was:
- Take care of admin. requests appropriately, including things like
(un)subscriptions.
- Distribute incoming postings to the relevant subscribers (this
may or may not include playing the role of MTA).
- And of course whatever error-stuff is relevant.
Corrections gladly accepted.
>The mailing lists here at GreatCircle.COM also do not operate the way
>you state. List-Managers (and all the rest) set "Sender:" to
>"List-Managers-Owner" (which is an alias that, in turn, points to me,
>the person who gets to deal with bounces).
Correction noted. I should've said "-Owner" instead of "-request".
># Could the authors of Majordomo, TULP, and other MLMs specify what
># they see as hard indicator for the casual user of what list the item
># was posted to and its <submit-posting-addr>?
>I've about decided to start adding a "Reply-To:" field to the headers
>for all my mailing lists. There was a reason I didn't do it when I
>first set all these lists up, but I can't recall what it was; if I
>can't remember what it was in the next few days, I'll probably just go
>ahead and do it and see what breaks next.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope nothing. :-)
Maybe your reason in some way had to do with the multitude of ways
"Reply-to:" can be used in for example Revised LISTSERV?
If you include a "Reply-To:", then:
- If you set it to always point to the "submit-posting-addr",
then posters can't override it to point to themselves.
- If you set it to always point at the poster's addr, then one
can't call it a discussion list; it becomes a distribution
of items for discussion off-list because users then don't have
an easy way to reply-to-the-list.
I know enough MUAs exist which don't provide the user with all the
neat facilities one would want. So besides providing the good MUAs
with a way to automate reply-to-list, something answering to points
1-3 would make life easier for the less privileged users.
As always, whatever is chosen, paramount is imho that the CASUAL
email/list user/subscriber should be able to understand it and its
meaning without needing to read an RFC or such.
If the header & its meaning/contents aren't clear at first glance
for such people then a user help file should state it in terms clear
to all, and if necessary rather verbose.
To assume users understand opsys X just because they're subscribed
to lists run by an MLM on opsys X doesn't take reality into account,
and automatically restricts that MLM to a subset of possible users.
This may well be the express intention of the MLM author, and should
be respected. Would those MLM-authors please make it known? It
wouldn't be fair to bug them with something they don't want anyway.
The fact that "Sender:" means different things to at least two
separate groups of people won't make it easier to get people to see
and use it in a single consistent manner.
Therefore introduction of "List:" might be a relief to a lot of
casual users, though it would mean some work on the side of MLM
authors, not to mention the maintainers/owners of MLMs/lists. It
would also mean extra work for authors/maintainers of MUAs which
provide their users with neat facilities.
The only people being spared work would be those involved with MTAs,
I think... But for those who see ease-of-use by the USERS as prime
goal, this one-time cycle of work might be gladly taken, especially
since it may well be the last they see of the whole problem.
People involved in instruction of MLM/MUA useage would also have it
easier, methinks.
Regards.
$$\
|
