[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging |
Date: |
27 Aug 2003 11:29:17 +0900 |
MJ Ray <address@hidden> writes:
> How do you tell, from M-F-T, whether the sender is subscribed?
Presumably because the M-F-T header will contain the sender's address if
he's not subscribed, and won't contain it if he _is_ subscribed.
> You might also like to ask "Given only M-F-T and other non-List-*
> headers, how can I tell if a message is from a mailing list?"
Actually, I'd like to ask `Why do you care if the message is from a mailing
list?' The `important thing' (at least in the context of this discussion)
is that followups go to the `right place.'
> "What does M-F-T actually give that isn't present elsewhere?"
Presuming the agent who added M-F-T (either the real sender, or the MLM)
was smart about it, because it reflects exactly the information you asked
about above -- whether or not the sender is on the mailing list, and thus
whether followups should omit the sender or not.
Note that in an ideal system, the _sender_ should add M-F-T headers, if
he can do it `intelligently' (with knowledge of the sender's mailing-list
subscriptions), so it also can do the right thing in the case where the
message recipients include _multiple_ mailing lists, and the sender is on
some, but not all of them (basically M-F-T should omit the sender if he's
on _any_ of the mailing lists to which the message was sent). However,
the failure mode here is benign -- at worst, duplicate copies get sent
(if someone follows up to a copy of the message added by the MLM for a
non-subscribed mailing list, but the recipient headers also included a
subscribed mailing list).
-Miles
--
97% of everything is grunge
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Stig Brautaset, 2003/08/23
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Mark A. Flacy, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Robert Collins, 2003/08/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Miles Bader, 2003/08/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Specifying protocols [was: the dangers of no reply-to munging], Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Federico Di Gregorio, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, MJ Ray, 2003/08/22