On 19 Jul 1993 22:03:20 GMT Eric Thomas said: >On Mon, 19 Jul 1993 10:47:20 EDT "Michael H. Morse" <[log in to unmask]> >said: >>2. subscribe [log in to unmask] >... >when posting. I guess it is obvious to a programmer that you don't need >to retype the hostname since you're mailing to that particular server, >while it is obvious to a user that it is "safer" to retype it since there >is then no possible ambiguity, "the computer" would surely rather have >redundant information than not enough :-) It's this kind of thing I mean; thinking like a user. A user who doesn't necessarily (need to) realise that "the computer" has other sources of info. On the other hand, what may be obvious to a user (inferred or assumed), may not be so to "the computer". 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. It's even more obvious to heesh when "Sender:" and "Reply-To:" are displayed right under each other, with the values starting in the same column. In the Internet world this doesn't seem possible to achieve, since at least some MTAs there will under *ALL* conditions rewrite header fields containing addresses, reducing the whitespace between header-name and -value to one character. But that's a side note. The header-setup of ListProcessor resembles Revised LISTSERV, except that only in the "To:" field is the list-name mentioned. Here's an example: Errors-To: <submit-posting-addr> * Reply-To: <submit-posting-addr> Sender: <submit-posting-addr> From: <poster-addr> * To: Multiple recipients of list <submit-posting-addr> If "Errors-To" (the header-NAME) had been one character longer, the optical pointer cwould have been even more pronounced, even though slanted. OK, so "Errors-To:" wouldn't really interest heesh as casual reader/poster, the pointer is clearer by its repetition. But omission of the list-name in "Reply-To:" and "Sender:" lines makes it less easy for a USER to see what's going on, especially since the list-name IS mentioned in "To:"... 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>. 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? Regards. $$\