Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!linus!agate!ucbvax!TRANSARC.COM!Craig_Everhart From: Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Use of Errors-To: (LONG, how'd that happen?) Message-ID: <8bpwIu70BwwO8_5kwe@transarc.com> Date: 8 Mar 91 17:09:14 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 31 (Eliot Lear's reply was apparently posted only to comp.mail.sendmail, should you wish to look it up.) Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.sendmail: 8-Mar-91 Re: Use of Errors-To: (LONG.. Eliot@turbo.bio.net (1620) > 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. I have to agree with Eliot Lear's conclusion and RFC 1123 (that mail redistributors shouldn't muck with message headers). I do want to point out that the mail systems (mail user agents) I've developed and used since 1979 don't have the problem of unclear distinctions between ``wide replies'' and ``replies to senders.'' For that matter, user agents older than that (HERMES) never had such problems either. Castigating all of ``the Internet mail system'' because of some deficient, albeit popular, user agents seems extreme. The distinctions seem clear to me. I think I've had this discussion with Tom Neff already. Sigh. Craig