Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:5012 comp.mail.sendmail:2823 comp.mail.headers:653 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Use of Errors-To: (LONG, how'd that happen?) Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 91 23:26:06 GMT References: <45833180@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <4081344@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Followup-To: comp.mail.misc Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 106 tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >OK, but wait. Let's talk about accidental distribution of "embarassing >messages." [... You didn't mention the case where a representative of a funding agency posts confidential information, accidentally. This has happened. Even with the bionet side of the mailing lists, we see little goofs like these all the time (about once a month); this because (among other things) the lists are redistributed by LISTSERV in some places, which whacks Reply-to and Sender. >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. In other words, each mailing list will have different Reply symantics, and that's a nightmare. If a user is subscribed to half a dozen mailing lists, they'll never remember the ``rules''. >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. This means that the sender cannot expect the appropriate behavior of his mail message, sometimes, given whatever ``list rules'' are in effect. So the end result is that the sender is stripped of the functionality of a reply-to mechanism. Maybe we *really* need a followup field in RFC-822 messages, for purposes of posting to the list. Thus both the sender and the mailing list coordinator could be accommodated. >When someone submits a piece to one of my lists, *I* am the receiver, so >never mind what I expect. Bull. It is the behavior of the MUAs used by the hundreds of users you serve that you are mucking with. To be perfectly honest with you, I *myself* get quite frustrated with you adding a followup-to line, because you are modifying my reader's default behavior (the reason it bothers me is that you are fragmenting discussion). AND HERE the paradigm is established and accepted!!! >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. First of all, RFC-821 has to do with the envelope, so it's not really envolved. Second, while RFC-1123 deals with mailing lists, it makes no mention of the Sender: or Reply-to: headers. So your statement is in error. >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. Obviously you should be pushing netnews a lot more than you are. I've been doing so with molecular biologists for the past several years, and have had very good success. >What I inhibit is the sender's ability to siphon discussion away from >the list _automatically_ by including some header line in his >submission. In doing so, you are modifying the recipient MUA's default behavior for reasons not intended by neither the original implementors, the sender, or the recipient. >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. And again, you are modifying the default behavior of every recipient's MUA; causing it to do something that most mailing lists don't do. That is extremely bad (again). >[unsubstantiated, silly, ad hominem attacks against the IETF deleted] >>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. And the amount of filters you run on your machine would bring mine to its knees; that machine does mail for a living. In order to remove such duplicates, you would have to compare the text of the new message with the text of recent messages (within several days), and you'd better pray to your local email deity that the text hasn't been munged by the offending mailer. This had happened to us, thanks to a LISTSERV about once every three months. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]