Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: Use of Errors-To: (LONG, how'd that happen?) Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 00:48:39 GMT References: <1991Mar6.172315.1112@phri.nyu.edu> <44380215@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <45833180@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 34 tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >After a few years playing with it, I have decided that where wideband >public mailing lists are concerned, reliable distribution takes >precedence over the sanctity of headers. After a few years of dealing with this issue, and after having chase down a number of embarrassing messages before they were widely distributed, I've come to the opposite conclusion. Indeed I would argue that this is a failing of the Internet mail system, that it has not made clear the distinction between wide replies and replies to senders. >This is not how it's worked out in the real world. Despite the growth >of Netnews, big mailing lists are still thriving, with members scattered >on strange networks all over the planet. I would agree that even with netnews, big mailing lists will be with us for a while. Nevertheless, changing the behavior in the MUAs from that of what both the sender and receiver expect is something that mailing list moderators should not be doing. By whacking the headers that you describe, you inhibit the sender's ability to redirect replies as he deems appropriate (like maybe to a return account). By redirecting those replies to a public list, you risk causing novice users to broadcast private mail. That's a tradeoff the IETF considers too expensive. In fact, because some networks use address as the errors-to address (bad practice), mailing list loops can develop as a result of setting the reply-to address automatically tom the list. Nothing pisses off members of a mailing list more than a mailing list loop. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]