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?
# Take a user (unlikely to know of RFC-822 etc.) reading a LISTSERV
# item and wanting to post a reply. Heesh sees the following hdrs:
# From: <poster-addr>
# * Reply-To: listname <submit-posting-addr>
# Sender: listname <submit-posting-addr>
# * To: Multiple recipients of listname <submit-posting-addr>
# OK, the hdrs with an "*" might not contain the above addr or text.
# 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
# items with the same type of display. When the "To:" field contains
# the above text, heesh gets the message even more clearly, and might
# use a reply-to-TO function (if available).
# 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.
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.
# As to items distributed by for example Majordomo and TULP, the
# contents of the above-mentioned headers seem to depend on the whim
# of the poster without a consistent pointer to the list in question
# or <submit-posting-addr>.
# 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.
My sample aliases for "resend" included with the Majordomo
distribution do NOT set "Sender:" to "listname-request". "resend"
will set the "Sender:" field to "listname-request" ONLY if the alias
doesn't specify a "-f" flag to "resend"; all my samples show an
appropriate "-f" flag.
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).
# Due the above, I'd like to suggest as a start the inclusion of the
# list-name in the relevant headers of ListProcessor postings.
# 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>? In other words, if
# heesh's MUA has a "reply-to-xxx" function, which header-name should
# replace the "xxx" in order to get that reply to the list?
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.
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates
[log in to unmask] 1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841 Mountain View, CA 94041
|
