Xref: utzoo comp.mail.sendmail:2822 comp.mail.misc:5006 comp.mail.headers:651 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Use of Errors-To: (LONG, how'd that happen?) Message-ID: <4081344@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 8 Mar 91 20:22:31 GMT References: <45833180@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Followup-To: comp.mail.misc Lines: 94 (This discussion is wandering around between groups -- I'll try to corral it together again.) In article lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >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. OK, but wait. Let's talk about accidental distribution of "embarassing messages." There are several kinds of that animal. One kind is misdirected administrivia, like "UNSUB joe@foo.com" being sent to the list, or almost anything that fits in one line (I find, empirically). We see this all the time on BITNET lists and such. My response is to **FILTER** anything that looks suspicious. It's not hard to do. Anything matching a list of trigger phrases, or anything shorter than about three nonempty lines, or anything from daemons, roots or other such entities, goes right into my hold box. I prefer to err on the side of discretion, but over time I have refined what does and doesn't pass. Another type of "embarassing message" is original text, not self evidently administrivia, from a poster who actually meant it to go somewhere else than the whole membership, e.g., misdirected private replies. This is a bit more complex, since the judgment whether something's misdirected can take some careful reading. Nevertheless, simple filters can be of help here too: peeling off anything with a secondary /^To:/ buried in the text, or anything asking someone to 'call me at', etc. Once a mail list membership gets USED TO an environment where only public discussion is delivered to their desks, they tend to cast their replies in discussion form rather than assuming that private replies are the norm. That cuts significantly down on the number of interventions I have to do. I can and do also filter for "problem members" with a record of questionable submissions; their stuff goes into hold just for safety's sake until I can look it over and wave it through. I also make it a point to let new members KNOW what the rules are, and where replies go by default. I also tell people that if they need to make an exception, as with a club formation announcement where the poster really wants replies to go directly to him rather than to the list, it's very easy for me to accomodate. All the poster need do is send his message to the -request address, with a cover note. That should be the exceptional message, not the norm. >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. When someone submits a piece to one of my lists, *I* am the receiver, so never mind what I expect. What the sender expects should be entirely conditioned by the ground rules explained when they joined. Again, I am not talking about private mail here. That goes through in fine RFC821/1123 style. In exchange for asking me to perform the service of broadcasting their words to hundreds of readers worldwide, I ask readers to bear with me as I manage the headers. And I have had zero complaints from the membership. > 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). What I inhibit is the sender's ability to siphon discussion away from the list _automatically_ by including some header line in his submission. I deem this in the list's interest, and an acceptable risk given the noise filters in place. Any member with a legitimate need for a posting whose replies will be directed back to him, or elsewhere, need only send the message to -request with a cover note. > 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. Considering the many megabytes of verbiage IETF has churned out, I am genuinely impressed when it decides something is "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. Prevented by a filter, which however hasn't recorded an actual instance of this in eighteen months. In article <8bpwIu70BwwO8_5kwe@transarc.com> Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM writes: >I think I've had this discussion with Tom Neff already. Sigh. My apologies for being slow to realize that this issue had already taken its place on the planetary "It's OK, Craig's Discussed It" honor roll! :-)