From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 1 18:03:02 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA14390 for list-managers-include; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA14383 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:02:49 -0800 (PST) From: Travplace@aol.com Received: from Travplace@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id QBRMa17823 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:15:13 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:15:13 EST To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Post Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hopefully some of you have some technical advice on how to deal with the following spamming nightmare. A person who calls himself "Sanford Wallace" somehow managed to gain mailing access to one of my annoucement lists, Hot Travel Deals. He then sent multiple spams to all of the list subscribers. Sparklist, my listhost, has no idea how this happened. Therefore, although Sparklist and I contacted the spammer and ordered him to cease and desist, there is no guarantee that this will not happen again -- although he hasn't sent any messages to the list in the last couple of days. "Sanford" first subscribed his multiple email addresses to the list, then somehow managed to throw a loop into the list -- which is an annoucement list -- so that it was, in essence, a digest. All messages sent to the listowner's email address -- including his spams -- were therefore sent to the entire list. He used someone else's address as a return email alias, and of course this person was besieged with hundreds of email complaints. Finally, I have tonight learned that he has just started using the listowner email address for Hot Travel Deals as his return address for some of his spams. Please, any suggestions as to how to deal with this as a technical matter? Marcy Peek P.S. We hear that Sanford is a notorious spammer. His website address is http://www.sanfordwallace.com. All of his Philadelphia phone numbers have been disconnected, although he does reply to emails sent to his legitimate addresses. One is fromweb@sanfordwallace.com. Any information that you have about this person would be appreciated. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 1 21:01:59 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA15989 for list-managers-include; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:01:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA15982 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id AAA10607; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA00580; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:13:25 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:13:25 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Travplace@aol.com cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 Travplace@aol.com wrote: > "Sanford" first subscribed his multiple email addresses to the > list, then somehow managed to throw a loop > into the list -- which is an annoucement list -- > so that it was, in essence, a digest. > All messages sent to the listowner's email address -- including his > spams -- were therefore > sent to the entire list. Bummer. Spamford Wallace is an infamous spammer with years of experience in email trickery. What sort of software is used to serve your mailing list (MajorDomo, Listproc, Listserv, Lyris, etc.)? Are you sure he is sending this traffic through your list server? Does you list server allow anyone to get the subscriber list? It should not be easy to "hijack" the list server itself on a properly set up announcement list. If your server admin did not take care with the setup, it may be possible to for an outsider to get the subscriber addresses . He could then send email directly to your subscribers which looks like it came from your server. See if you can get a full-headers copy of one of the spams. Have your local postmaster look over the headers to confirm it's true origin. Have your serve admin confirm that outsiders can NOT request a copy of your subscriber list. Please keep us posted as you learn more. This sort of attack could affect us all depending on the technique Spamford used to compromise your list. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 1 21:29:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA16207 for list-managers-include; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.252.88.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA16200 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.252.88.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA16491; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:41:36 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:41:01 -0500 To: Travplace@aol.com From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Post Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 21:15 -0500 11/01/98, Travplace@aol.com said: >A person who calls himself "Sanford Wallace" somehow managed >to gain mailing access to one of my annoucement lists, Hot Travel Deals. [snip] >P.S. We hear that Sanford is a notorious spammer. >His website address is http://www.sanfordwallace.com. >All of his Philadelphia phone numbers have been disconnected, >although he does reply to emails sent to his legitimate addresses. >One is fromweb@sanfordwallace.com. Any information that you have >about this person would be appreciated. Marcy, Just a gut feeling, but I doubt that this is "the" Sanford Wallace that you are dealing with. Suggestion: Do not contact the spammer; contact his ISP. Also, you might want to require administrative approvals for all subscription requests for a while, until the idiot finally goes away. Best of luck with it. - Vince From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 1 23:09:28 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA17185 for list-managers-include; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA17178 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (DELAAB65@localhost) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22139; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:51:42 +0500 (GMT+0500) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:51:41 +0500 (GMT+0500) From: VINAY TALWAR To: Travplace@aol.com cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Good Mailing List Services In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, We are starting a mailing list for one of our customers which is expected to reach a strength of 15,000 subscribers within the next 6 to 9 months. Can the knowledgeable people here let me know which mailing list service would be best in a situation like this. What are the parameters that one should keep in mind while deciding on the list hosting service ? Thanks, Regards, Vinay ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinay Talwar,CEO, email:DELAAB65@nda.vsnl.net.in Vital Communications Ltd, http://vitalcommunications.com Vital Infotech Ltd, http://vitalinfotech.com Member:National Committee on Communications-Confederation of IndianIndustry Executive Committeee-Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association Member Sub Committee on E-Commerce, CII Member Sub committee for ISPs, CII Software Development (Outsourcing) Services - Onsite and Offshore ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 1 23:27:07 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA17343 for list-managers-include; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA17336 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA39166 ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:42:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:35:03 -0800 To: murr rhame , Travplace@aol.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Post Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:13 PM -0800 11/1/98, murr rhame wrote: > Please keep us posted as you learn more. This sort of attack could > affect us all depending on the technique Spamford used to compromise > your list. If it is him. And not someone else sliming the lists, and doing it in Spamford's name so that someone else gets the blame. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 2 08:32:16 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id IAA25421 for list-managers-include; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from firefly.cisco.com (firefly.cisco.com [171.69.63.22]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA25414 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA21205; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:44:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811021644.IAA21205@firefly.cisco.com> To: Travplace@aol.com cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Post In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:13:25 EST." Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 08:44:52 -0800 From: "Kenneth E. Paul" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ->On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 Travplace@aol.com wrote: -> ->> "Sanford" first subscribed his multiple email addresses to the ->> list, then somehow managed to throw a loop ->> into the list -- which is an annoucement list -- ->> so that it was, in essence, a digest. ->> All messages sent to the listowner's email address -- including his ->> spams -- were therefore ->> sent to the entire list. Back in August I found the following address in a list I manage with majordomo: #toorich@netcom.com Definately the look and feel of a spammer address. Looking back through the logs that were on line at the time, and the and the sub/unsub announcements which I keep, but I couldn't find any record of this account being added. I never got any list generated bounces from that address, yet the account generates a 550 error when I sent mail to it directly. I sent mail to the majordomo-users list at the time, but no one seemed to know of any holes, so I simply removed the address from the list. Regards, Kenny Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth E. Paul, Sr. Systems Administrator kenny@cisco.com Software Management & Delivery Systems 408-526-5210 Cisco Systems, Inc. 100 W. Tasman Dr. M-2, San Jose CA, 95134 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It's a shame that our kids are dumb but our bombs are smart." -Danny Elfman From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 2 19:30:35 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA29116 for list-managers-include; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA29107 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (news-ma.rhein-neckar.de [193.197.90.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA14430 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mips.rhein-neckar.de (uucp@localhost) by news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with bsmtp id DAA11164 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:58:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de) Received: by mips.rhein-neckar.de id m0zZQXR-000WyOC (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:13:13 +0100 (CET) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Path: not-for-mail From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Newsgroups: list.list.managers Subject: Re: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture Date: 31 Oct 1998 03:13:12 +0100 Lines: 28 Message-ID: <71drno$njo$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> References: <19981028175207.A3280@A470.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test67 (15 July 1998) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In article <19981028175207.A3280@A470.demon.co.uk>, Darren Wyn Rees wrote: > And I'm basically wondering how other people have coped > with radical changes to -their- list cultures? Well, I am, or rather, have been mostly a Usenet person, so I know little about the changes in list culture over time. I do notice that there are now a quite a few lists around that have two features enabled I consider very stupid, and annoyingly users are asking for other lists to be converted to this, namely - forcing a Reply-To header with the list address, - forcing a [LIST] prefix into the Subject header, both of which are intended to help people with poor list handling but making it the same more difficult for people with sensible list handling (separate folders, gateway to local newsgroups). Regarding your centralist/federal issue: I run two local mail2news gateways, one here at home for my personal use, one at university. As a result I go through the steps of subscribing many mailinglists. There are too many different list server packages out there, with too many different interfaces and additional idiosyncracies (e.g. in the name of spam-proofing) at each individual installation. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de 100+ SF Book Reviews: From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 8 14:26:21 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA19381; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA19371 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA24745 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:46:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5990 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 1998 15:59:27 -0000 Message-ID: <19981102105927.B565@blank.org> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:59:27 -0500 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: Travplace@aol.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Post References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Travplace@aol.com on Sun, Nov 01, 1998 at 09:15:13PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the immortal words of Travplace@aol.com (Travplace@aol.com): > > A person who calls himself "Sanford Wallace" somehow managed > to gain mailing access to one of my annoucement lists, Hot Travel Deals. Just FYI, this is almost certainly not the real Sanford Wallace. The real one has publically retired from the spam biz, and is even cooperating with antispammers these days. (Anything to keep his name in the headlines, but whatever...) > Please, any suggestions as to how to deal with this as a technical > matter? Make the list moderated, and hand-approve posts until your "friend" gets the hint and goes away. If you listhost doesn't allow this as an option...take your business to one that does! -n ------------------------------------------------------------ "just remember -- you don't have to love yourself, you can just hate a lot of other people and then grade yourself on the curve." (--x. trapnel, via echo) ------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 8 14:41:18 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA19494; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:10:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA19486 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA16108 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20195 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 1998 16:17:20 -0000 Message-ID: <19981103111720.O565@blank.org> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:17:20 -0500 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: Christian Weisgerber , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture References: <19981028175207.A3280@A470.demon.co.uk> <71drno$njo$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <71drno$njo$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de>; from Christian Weisgerber on Sat, Oct 31, 1998 at 03:13:12AM +0100 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the immortal words of Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de): > > I do notice that there are now a quite a few lists around that have two > features enabled I consider very stupid, and annoyingly users are asking > for other lists to be converted to this, namely > - forcing a Reply-To header with the list address, > - forcing a [LIST] prefix into the Subject header, > both of which are intended to help people with poor list handling but > making it the same more difficult for people with sensible list > handling (separate folders, gateway to local newsgroups). Okay, perhaps I'm being dense here... the reasons for "Reply-to" being harmful are well-known, but how on earth does a [LISTNAME] prefix in the subject line make like more difficult for people with "sensible" list-handling procedures? Last I heard, procmail can filter just fine on subject lines, and it's not like it disables the other standard filtering mechanisms.... -n ------------------------------------------------------------ "Maybe this never happens / to lovers with braver souls." (--Groovasaurus) ------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 8 14:56:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA19700; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA19690 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:12:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.wasantara.net.id (mailgate.wasantara.net.id [202.159.65.166]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA19255 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 02:15:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mojokerto.wasantara.net.id ([172.16.13.163]) by mailgate.wasantara.net.id (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19175 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:56:59 +0700 (JAVT) Received: from MOJOKERTO/SpoolDir by mojokerto.wasantara.net.id (Mercury 1.40); 5 Nov 98 17:32:33 +0700 Received: from SpoolDir by MOJOKERTO (Mercury 1.40); 5 Nov 98 17:32:09 +0700 Received: from mojokerto.wasantara.net.id (172.16.13.182) by mojokerto.wasantara.net.id (Mercury 1.40); 5 Nov 98 17:32:03 +0700 From: "Eko Priono" Organization: SurvPC X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/survpc/ X-Description: A mailing list for discussions of old PCs and DOS Internet X-Legacy: Sent from an EMU386-enhanced 16Mhz AT286 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:59:18 +0700 (JAVT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Sanford Wallace's response [Was: Re: Post] Reply-to: epr@earthdome.com In-reply-to: <199811030926.BAA09043@honor.greatcircle.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Message-ID: <4B9AE8659D@mojokerto.wasantara.net.id> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:15:13 EST, Marcy Peek wrote: > We hear that Sanford is a notorious spammer. His website address > is http://www.sanfordwallace.com. All of his Philadelphia phone > numbers have been disconnected, although he does reply to emails > sent to his legitimate addresses. One is fromweb@sanfordwallace.com. > Any information that you have about this person would be appreciated. I tried to contact Sanford. Just curious that Marcy's post was actually one of Sanford's disguised spam sent to this list. And he did responding, said that he already ceased spaming bussines, and Marcy's trouble was caused by his own list provider misconfigured his Listserv... --Eko ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:54:47 -0500 To: epr@earthdome.com From: Sanford Wallace Subject: Re: Your Ad ? At 11:52 PM 11/4/98 +0700, you wrote: >Well, Guess this was an example of your ad? ;) This post has started a >long thread in List-Managers mailing list. Surely increasing traffic at >your site too! Very smooth... Almost :) Can you post this to that List-Manager mailing list. This scapegoat routine has gone MUCH too far! I haven't been in the spamming business for over a year now. I recently sent this email to the Travel Deals owner. At 09:44 PM 11/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-10-30 00:01:56 EST, procyon1@juno.com writes: > ><< > Sanford will honor all list-deletion requests. > If you wish to be removed from this list... > please hit reply and include the following EXACT text > IN THE *SUBJECT* FIELD... > > DELETE:outgoing-traveldeals@relay7.sparklist.com > > The address above will be permanently removed within 48 hours. > >> > >Sanford: > >By the way, as for your excuse that you did not send messages >to the members of our Hot Travel Deals list, you are clearly requesting >in your spams that people send messages to our email address at >Sparklist. This is all the proof that we need that you did intentionally >send spam to all of the members of our list. > That is completely not true... > Sanford will honor all list-deletion requests. > If you wish to be removed from this list... > please hit reply and include the following EXACT text > IN THE *SUBJECT* FIELD... > > DELETE:outgoing-traveldeals@relay7.sparklist.com In every message that I send, I give those exact instructions for removal. If someone wants to get off of my list, they hit *reply* and include that delete line, which is customized with the unique address for each recipient that gets my mail. This way I know exactly what address to remove! The reason that the outgoing-travel line is in the delete line is because I sent *one* email to that exact address, and sparky relayed it to your whole damn list. Christopher already admitted that he misconfigured your listserv. I didn't want the mail to go to your list. I didn't even know that your list existed in the first place. I sent it to that address, because I received incoming commercial email with that address in it. Everyone on your list, got the identical message, which is why you probably saw so many removal requests with that delete line. >We order you to cease and desist immediately. >Legal action will be taken to cease these activities. > There's nothing for me to cease. Chris advised me that he fixed HIS mistake. You are yelling at the wrong person. If anyone sent email to that one address, it was relayed to your whole list. This is between you and Sparky's list services. >We have a trail of email evidence >that will prove that you engaged in this spamming activity and >that you illegally used the trademarks of Sparklist and Hot Travel Deals >during this spamming activity. > The only thing that I did was send one email, and your listserv company relayed it to your whole list. I can only apologize for sending one email. I didn't do anything to purposely spam your members. I hope that you understand the basics of what happened. You're yelling at the wrong person. -Sanford From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 9 08:15:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA05566; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcc.net (150.pcc.net [206.135.217.150]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA05558 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from jeannean [209.101.118.130] by pcc.net (SMTPD32-4.06) id A35F3B6032E; Mon, 09 Nov 1998 10:07:59 CDT From: "Jeanne" To: Subject: RE: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:15:18 -0600 Message-ID: <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19981103111720.O565@blank.org> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Just joined this group. I've been running a list for about a year now and people are perpetually asking that I do this. What indeed are the well-known reasons? Thanks, Jeanne > reasons for "Reply-to" being > harmful are well-known From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 9 15:47:55 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA10872; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:48:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA10865 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:47:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id QAA01486 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:02:02 -0700 (MST) From: Lazlo Nibble Message-ID: <19981109160201.B28968@swcp.com> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:02:01 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <19981028175207.A3280@A470.demon.co.uk> <71drno$njo$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> <19981103111720.O565@blank.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <19981103111720.O565@blank.org>; from Nathan J. Mehl on Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 11:17:20AM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 11:17:20AM -0500, Nathan J. Mehl wrote: > Okay, perhaps I'm being dense here... the reasons for "Reply-to" being > harmful are well-known, but how on earth does a [LISTNAME] prefix > in the subject line make like more difficult for people with "sensible" > list-handling procedures? It can break subject threading. -- Lazlo Nibble | "There's no moral, Uncle Remus, just lazlo@swcp.com | random acts of meaningless violence." http://www.swcp.com/lazlo | -- Michael O'Donoghue From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 9 16:03:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA10951; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA10944 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from Venus.mcs.net (dattier@Venus.mcs.net [192.160.127.92]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA14218 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:06:16 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Venus.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id RAA17440 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:06:16 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811092306.RAA17440@Venus.mcs.net> Subject: why tagged subjects are annoying To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:06:15 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <19981103111720.O565@blank.org> from "Nathan J. Mehl" at Nov 3, 98 11:17:20 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nathan Mehl wrote, | Okay, perhaps I'm being dense here... the reasons for "Reply-to" being | harmful are well-known, but how on earth does a [LISTNAME] prefix | in the subject line make like more difficult for people with "sensible" | list-handling procedures? It's not as bad as clobbering Reply-To:, but it is annoying. For one thing, many list setups that add it don't notice properly if it is already there, so if someone replies to "[LISTNAME] real subject" with "Re: [LISTNAME] real subject", the list changes it to "[LISTNAME] Re: [LISTNAME] real subject". Now that Re: is not at the beginning, the next follow-up comes in as "Re: [LISTNAME] Re: [LISTNAME] real subject", and then the list software adds a third "[LISTNAME]". For another, if you have an index screen of your waiting mail that shows only the first N characters of the subject, padding it with "[LISTNAME] " allows that much less of the real subject in view. When the tag is stuffed in three times, the real subject is pushed completely out of the display. Third, posters try to be helpful by inserting it themselves, but if they get the spelling or the case or the delimiters wrong, the list software adds it again, so you get things like "[LISTNAME] (list name)". On the list I run, I offer tagged subject lines as an option, which right now only one person is using. If anything resembling the list's name is already in the subject, it is not added. All that said, at least tagging subjects does not do irreversible damage like clobbering Reply-To:. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 12 08:55:51 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA01675; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:32:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA01658 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:31:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate3-4.cyberlink.ch [195.246.74.74]) by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24926 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:46:30 +0100 Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01486; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:46:10 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:46:10 +0100 Message-Id: <199811121746.SAA01486@quill.thinkcoach.com> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Hosting service for virtual communities/support groups Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Greetings Does anyone know an internet presence provider that is genuinely interesting in meeting the needs of "virtual communities" such as e.g. support groups? I'm thinking of high-traffic mailing lists with corresponding websites. In some respects, hosting services which are more targeted to business websites simply don't do things right with respect to the needs of a support-group website. For example, one support group site that I care about has right now been hit hard by hitting the disc quota limit. A hard limit on disc space may be appropriate for an account where files are created by interactive commands or via ftp, but when mailing lists which are the lifeline for thousands of people simply break down merely because the disc quota of 100 megs has been exceeded (those archives are always growing), well... the people who take care of these lists would rather pay for an entire new 4 GB harddisc (and for having it installed etc) than having to deal with the effects of hitting such a disk quota limit. This is not to say that generous funding would be available... quite on the contrary! The poeple whom I'm talking about are struggeling to generate (e.g. by means of selling ads on the website) an income to cover (at least) the costs of hosting and perhaps also that of custom programming. It would be great to find a hosting service where these issues would be understood, and coaching and help with marketing web advertisements is vailable too. If you know of a hosting service that may be suitable please drop me an e-mail note. I will collect the recommendations and post the summary in a week or so. Thank you in advance! Norbert P.S. I have tried a web search and also checked http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds/usenet/ml-providers.txt but found no indication of what hosting services would _care_ about meeting the needs of "support group" or "virtual community" websites. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 13 05:50:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA18100; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:35:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA18077 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:35:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.228.155.84] (helo=A470.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1) id 0zeJc0-0005OX-00 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:50:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 898 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 1998 00:08:44 -0000 Message-ID: <19981113000844.A868@A470.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:08:44 +0000 From: Darren Wyn Rees To: "Jeffrey A. Campbell" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Intro to list Mail-Followup-To: "Jeffrey A. Campbell" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from Jeffrey A. Campbell on Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 10:02:55AM -0400 Organization: cefnddwr defnyddio ffaglen grugo telmau tynfeydd X-PGP: finger merlin@netlink.co.uk for key X-PGP-812C54B1: F8 79 5E 84 F0 20 A5 62 FA 2D E9 BD BE 06 7D 10 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 10:02:55AM -0400, Jeffrey A. Campbell wrote in majordomo-users : > I've been on a lot of lists over the past few years (usually > relating to hobbies) but this is my first time as a list admin. Looking > forward to the opportunity to bounce ideas of fellow list admins. I've CCed this reply to the list managers' list (also at GreatCircle). Really speaking, majordomo-users is for majordomo-specific discussion : and I feel you are really asking list admin / management questions. > One of the things I am having trouble with is keeping a steady > conversation going. We have about 110 members and the conversations seem > to come in fits and starts. We'll have a big burst then nothing for > a week or so. Is this common for new, smaller lists? Yes. Very common. It's not just common to new lists, it's common to 'old' lists too. You use "fits and starts" ... I once described a similar list to someone recently as "burpy" : A sort of undpredictable burp. > As a spin-off of some of the other research and development work > we are doing, we also cooked up a search engine for list archives. Great! list archives add a lot of value for various reasons, none of which I'll bore you with. From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 18 08:41:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA16813; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:40:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from linus.mitre.org (linus.mitre.org [129.83.10.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA16801 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:40:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from caffeine.mitre.org (caffeine.mitre.org [129.83.10.136]) by linus.mitre.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06541 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:56:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from justin@localhost) by caffeine.mitre.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28204; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:56:02 -0500 (EST) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture References: <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> From: Justin Sheehy Date: 18 Nov 1998 11:56:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeanne"'s message of "Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:15:18 -0600" Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070042 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.42) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Jeanne" writes: [reply-to munging] > I've been running a list for about a year now and people are > perpetually asking that I do this. What indeed are the well-known > reasons? Most of them can be found here: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -Justin From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 18 20:35:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA24969; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:14:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from play.gamerz.net (play.gamerz.net [207.96.1.115]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA24962 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:14:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.252.88.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by play.gamerz.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id XAA24968 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:30:16 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "Jeanne"'s message of "Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:15:18 -0600" <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:29:04 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 11:56 -0500 11/18/98, Justin Sheehy sent everyone: >"Jeanne" writes: > >[reply-to munging] > >> I've been running a list for about a year now and people are >> perpetually asking that I do this. What indeed are the well-known >> reasons? > >Most of them can be found here: > >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Just for the record, I disagree with nearly every point made in that treatise. Overall, it is the list-owner equivalent of the GOOD TIMES virus hoax. (Uh-oh ... I feel a rant coming on ...) In short, munging (or adding) the REPLY-TO header has some very nice benefits -- most notably (and then I'll step down off my soap box), lists that DO NOT implement a REPLY-TO header require that you perform a "group" reply, also known as a "reply to all." This includes the original author in the reply. When the NEXT person does a "group" reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows. This is a PITA. People who have a problem with Reply-To munging usually have a sob story about accidentally sending personal mail to the entire mailing list. The treatise is no different (okay, ONE MORE point, and THEN I'll get down off my soap box): >When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I >accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn >lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list properly, >no way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I stopped munging >the very next day. Ah yes, the testimonial to personal stupidity. How touching. Look, if you're not bright enough to pay attention when composing e-mail, you really have no business running a mailing list. (And if anyone quotes my message from the one time that I did that on one of my lists, I'm REALLY gonna get ticked. ;-) Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST. In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of REPLY-TO-LIST. I'm running lists for my subscribers, not for some clown who wants to mention RFC822 as if it decries Reply-To munging, (it doesn't), and then spreads FUD by saying "Email handling is surprisingly complicated, and even an innocuous-sounding change might have grave, unintended consequences." Bullhockey. E-mail is one of the most straightforward things on the planet, it nearly predates the existence of hair ferchrissake, and if the author of that document really believes his own FUD, he shouldn't be running mailing lists. I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit. Whew. As you were, soldiers. - Vince From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 18 22:35:54 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA26282; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA26275 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:23:37 -0800 (PST) From: ChuckMiro@aol.com Received: from ChuckMiro@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id QUPBa10204 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:39:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1aac0434.3653bd11@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:39:13 EST To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/19/98 1:08:13 AM, Vince wrote: > > >Whew. As you were, soldiers. Cool. :) Actually, I'll have to agree with Vince (though perhaps not as colorfully). I've run a medium- to high-volume list for the past three years and the number of people who can barely even send email amazes me. To expect they - or even a majority of subscribers within my experience -- can know the difference between sending to group or to individuals, and remember to do this in every case, is frankly too much, in my opinion. Chuck --- CasbahCarl's GOING POSTAL! Zone (http://users.aol.com/casbahcarl/) Ned Numenor's Dark Suspicions (http://members.tripod.com/~Dark_Suspicions) dcRPG (http://users.aol.com/casbahcarl/dcRPG/) From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 18 23:35:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA26799; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA26792 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA29922 ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:35:11 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "Jeanne"'s message of "Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:15:18 -0600" <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:31:24 -0800 To: Vince Sabio , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:29 PM -0500 11/18/98, Vince Sabio wrote: > Just for the record, I disagree with nearly every point made in that > treatise. Overall, it is the list-owner equivalent of the GOOD TIMES > virus hoax. and just for the record -- I disagree with Vince. While the document and I don't agree 100%, I find it very persuasive and right-on. > In short, munging (or adding) the REPLY-TO header has some very nice > benefits -- most notably (and then I'll step down off my soap box), > lists that DO NOT implement a REPLY-TO header require that you > perform a "group" reply, also known as a "reply to all." which is fine, IMHO. Here's how I look at it. From the point of view of the naive/new user, the Reply-To is impossible for them to over-ride. They don't know how, and that only encourages chaff and accidental posts, not to mention that users who want to reply privately can't. On the other hand, users who want to go reply-to-all as default can. I do, for instance. By *not* coercing reply-to, I leave the choice in the hands of the author of the message. I find it very arrogant to assume I know better than the author how a message should be sent, especially since by coercing the reply-to, I make it DAMN hard for a user to change it back, while if I don't coerce it, it's fairly easy to do the opposite. > This includes > the original author in the reply. When the NEXT person does a "group" > reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And > all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows. > > This is a PITA. it's actually a very tiny one. I've studied this -- the amount of "duplicate" mail people get is NEVER even close to 1% of a person's total e-mail traffic. And while some individuals are rather sensitve to these duplicates, most folks DON'T CARE. I'm sorry if you're one of them -- but it's not significant and it's not a real PITA. And forcing ALL users into this mode because a few people get upset once in a while is a bad reason to coerce reply-tos. >>When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I >>accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn > Ah yes, the testimonial to personal stupidity. How touching. Vince, don't get demeaning. you only need to send one really, really embarassing (or damaging, dangerous, libelous or just plain stupid) piece of e-mail to realize that ONE is enough. If you've never done it, bless you. May you never. but if you do, maybe you'll understand a little better and not pull this "how touching" stuff. Phttt. You're above that kind of snide insult. > Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my > lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the > list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST. > In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of > REPLY-TO-LIST. I've not only done polls, but I've done user testing and studied how users USE the lists. They may prefer the coerced reply-to (but frankly, I've run polls, and I can guarantee you I'll get whatever answer I *want* simply by how I state the question), but my user testing and my mail-flow tests both strongly indicate the reply-to causes many more problesm for the typical user than it solves. > I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL > minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up > for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit. be my guest. Just understand that you're wrong.... (grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 03:38:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA00136; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA00129 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA22575 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:20:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:20:12 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Vince Sabio wrote: > Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my > lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the > list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST. > In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of > REPLY-TO-LIST. > I'm running lists for my subscribers, not for some clown who wants to > mention RFC822 as if it decries Reply-To munging, (it doesn't), and then > I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL > minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up > for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit. Not a minority opinion as far as I'm concerned. My experience is that it depends on the list - on most of the lists I run reply-to-sender is what is most appropriate (in the eyes of list participants and myself as list sponsor). In other cases, reply-to-sender is more appropriate. There's no general rule. Miles Fidleman ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director of Civic Networking Systems 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 06:39:38 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA03862; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:12:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA03855 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00424 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03303 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:27:39 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:27:39 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Vince, don't get demeaning. you only need to send one really, > really embarassing (or damaging, dangerous, libelous or just plain > stupid) piece of e-mail to realize that ONE is enough. If you've > never done it, bless you. May you never. but if you do, maybe > you'll understand a little better and not pull this "how touching" > stuff. Phttt. You're above that kind of snide insult. Misdirected email is embarassing. Over the years, I've done it more than once. In the most embarassing misdirected email incident I've had, I sent a private reply which was correctly addressed to a subscriber. He quoted my entire private reply back in a public reply. Even if you don't screw up, someone else may screw it up for you. No matter where you send your email, chances are good that some of it will be seen by "the wrong person". The standard setup for all discussion mailing lists which I host is to have the Reply To: pointing to the list address and the From: line pointing to the author. For a viable discussion list, you're going to have to munge either the From: line or The Reply To: line. My preference is to direct the Reply To: back the the list. I've seen several discussion on this topic before. Those who have a preference, tend to have very strong convictions. I doubt that anyone will change their position based on a few emails seen on a list-admin mailing list or an editorial posted on the web. Choose the setup you think is best for your list. Don't worry about how other lists are set up. Be happy. - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 06:56:09 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA04037; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA04030 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by unicom.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA00646 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:45:06 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199811191445.IAA00646@unicom.com> Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:45:05 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Vince Sabio" at Nov 18, 1998 11:29:04 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Vince Sabio writes: > When the NEXT person does a "group" > reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And > all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows. I agree. That is a persuasive counter-argument in favor of Reply-To munging. I don't agree that one point is sufficient to tip the balance. If it had been sufficiently persuasive, then the additional ad hominem attack would have been unnecessary. If somebody is aware of a document that argues the opposite case -- without resorting to throwing insults at me -- I'd be glad to link to it. Just let me know. By the way, note this message is addressed only to the list. I did my Elm g)roup reply, and used an xterm cut-n-paste to move the Cc: to the To:. It's a little more work, but way easier than trying to reply to the author on a munged list. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development http://www.unicom.com/ Has your mail server been spamproofed? http://maps.vix.com/tsi/ Outlaw junk email * Support CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/ "Sure it's working, but couldn't you shine it up some?" From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 07:26:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA04388; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from play.gamerz.net (play.gamerz.net [207.96.1.115]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA04381 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.252.88.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by play.gamerz.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id KAA22725 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:08:03 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "Jeanne"'s message of "Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:15:18 -0600" <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:08:18 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 2:31 -0500 11/19/98, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone: >At 11:29 PM -0500 11/18/98, Vince Sabio wrote: > >> Just for the record, I disagree with nearly every point made in that >> treatise. Overall, it is the list-owner equivalent of the GOOD TIMES >> virus hoax. > >and just for the record -- I disagree with Vince. While the document >and I don't agree 100%, I find it very persuasive and right-on. And just for the record, I disagr-- oh, never mind. >Here's how I look at it. From the point of view of the naive/new user, >the Reply-To is impossible for them to over-ride. They don't know how, >and that only encourages chaff and accidental posts, not to mention >that users who want to reply privately can't. (Oh no ... it's ... it's ... it's ... .it's happening ... again! *sigh* Sorry about this ...) Okay, let's take an example list: Mac-L. (I think you're familiar with that one, Chuq; for anyone else, it's a Macintosh discussion list that seems to attract people who can't even tell which box is the modem. Some of the users are really sharp, but we have lots of folks who are very new to computers, not just the'Net.) Mac-L is configured as REPLY-TO-LIST, and it is a VERY rare occasion (like once/month or less) that someone sends an "accidental" post to the list. To be honest, I can't even recall when the last one occurred. But the extra convenience it provides them seems to be well appreciated -- whenever the subject comes up, there are always folks who contrast Mac-L with "those other lists" (REPLY-TO- SENDER configured lists), which they clearly find more difficult and more confusing to navigate. Mac-L is also the list on which I've conducted most of the REPLY-TO polls (three of them to date). Maybe it's just my users, but they definitely seem to prefer the REPLY-TO-LIST configuration. (There are those who do not, but they are far in the minority, poll-wise.) >On the other hand, users who want to go reply-to-all as default can. I >do, for instance. By *not* coercing reply-to, I leave the choice in the >hands of the author of the message. I find it very arrogant to assume I >know better than the author how a message should be sent, especially >since by coercing the reply-to, I make it DAMN hard for a user to >change it back, while if I don't coerce it, it's fairly easy to do the >opposite. If the choice is merely the default of whether it goes to the list or goes to the author, then I don't find it to be at all "arrogant" for me to decide that replies should go to the list -- especially if that is the expressed preference of my subscribership. The only exception to this is when the person composing the reply WANTS to send it to the author, AND the author has a Reply-To that is different from the address on his >From line. Obviously, Reply-To munging blows away the original Reply-To (or relegates it to an X-Reply-To (or similar) line, where the sender will probably never see it), so the the author must place his preferred address in his .sig, AND the sender must be smart enough to look in the .sig and use that address. In my book, this is the only disadvantage of Reply-To munging, and in the years that I've been running mailing lists, I've yet to have a single complaint lodged about this. Thus, I tend to think that it's a very rare occurrence (if it occurs at all). >> This includes >> the original author in the reply. When the NEXT person does a "group" >> reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And >> all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows. >> >> This is a PITA. > >it's actually a very tiny one. I've studied this -- the amount of >"duplicate" mail people get is NEVER even close to 1% of a person's >total e-mail traffic. At least one of the non-munged lists that I'm on has a tendency to grow the To line nearly without bound. I find myself (as others have) receiving direct mail long after a thread has moved off to a different topic. It's not unusual for someone to post a "please take me off the replies to this thread" message to the list. Several of us have begged the list owner to force a Reply-To , but for whatever reason he prefers to keep the list configured as it is. That's merely an exmaple. There are cases where REPLY-TO-SENDER is overwhelmingly the preferred configuration, but somehow I don't think I need to defend those cases. ;-) >And while some individuals are rather sensitve to >these duplicates, most folks DON'T CARE. I'm sorry if you're one of >them -- but it's not significant and it's not a real PITA. See example above. While that list is the best (worst?) example, there are others. I think that the larger the list, the less probable that it will be a problem (oddly enough) (well, not oddly at all if you think about it). So I'd say that it's list (and subscribership) dependent. >And forcing >ALL users into this mode because a few people get upset once in a while >is a bad reason to coerce reply-tos. Ah, but NOT forcing it tends to upset even *more* users (in most cases IME). Using the minimum-user-upset metric, we arrive at Reply-To munging as a recommended configuration in many cases. >>>When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I >>>accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn > >> Ah yes, the testimonial to personal stupidity. How touching. > >Vince, don't get demeaning. Too late. :-) >you only need to send one really, really >embarassing (or damaging, dangerous, libelous or just plain stupid) >piece of e-mail to realize that ONE is enough. BTDT, and I *learned*. I did not force a new list configuration down my users' unwilling throats because of my own stupidity. Instead, I tried to do what Darwin would have done in this situation -- I learned a new skill. >If you've never done it, >bless you. May you never. but if you do, maybe you'll understand a >little better and not pull this "how touching" stuff. Phttt. You're >above that kind of snide insult. Am not. ;-) >> Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my >> lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the >> list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST. >> In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of >> REPLY-TO-LIST. > >I've not only done polls, but I've done user testing and studied how >users USE the lists. They may prefer the coerced reply-to (but >frankly, I've run polls, and I can guarantee you I'll get whatever >answer I *want* simply by how I state the question) So can I (I think), but I really try to keep the polls as objective as possible. I think it's important to realize that we're there for the subscribers as a whole; if we manage the lists for ourselves, and that happens to be substantially different from the desires of the constituency, then that consitituency will simply go elsewhere. >but my user >testing and my mail-flow tests both strongly indicate the reply-to >causes many more problesm for the typical user than it solves. My *experience* (and I've run both flavors of lists) (still do, in fact) indicates that Reply-To is not only preferred by the majority of users, but works out VERY well overall. Again, maybe it's the lists that I run, but I'd be surprised -- I *know* that there's a lot of subscriber overlap between your lists and mine. >> I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL >> minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up >> for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit. > >be my guest. Just understand that you're wrong.... (grin) In all seriousness, though (okay, I know you were serious, Chuq, but just go with me on this ), I really think that it's a matter of preference. In many cases, it's the list owner's preference. In some cases, it's the subscribers' preference. Might be a combination of the two. But one of the things that I definitely find disturbing in the anti-munging treatises, and in the anti-munging camp overall, is this tendency to ignore the preference of the subscribership. If your subscribers really prefer REPLY-TO-SENDER, by all means, do it. But if you want to talk about arrogance, then assuming that the list owner knows what's best for his (or her) constituency -- even if it that runs counter to the preferences of the subscribers -- is the epitome of list-owner arrogance. So, in my book, it really comes down to what the users *prefer*. Which is why I run both REPLY-TO-SENDER and REPLY-TO-LIST configured mailing lists. Rather than decry one or the other, why not just leave it up to the users? Now stop disagreeing with me over here and go subscribe to the *new* OAB list, Chuq -- so you can disagree with me over THERE. ;-) - Vince P.S. -- I appreciate the kind notes of support on this subject that have been sent to me by personal mail. Too bad we don't have reply-to munging on this list, since it would have been nice if they'd accidentally been sent to the entire list. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 09:52:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA06580; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:36:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA06573 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:35:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from pop02.execpc.com (pop02.execpc.com [169.207.3.114]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.0) id LAA23284 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:51:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from fnord.execpc.com (windowpane.execpc.com [169.207.1.11]) by pop02.execpc.com (8.8.8) id LAA04848 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:51:34 -0600 Received: by fnord.execpc.com id LAA02551; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:51:29 -0600 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:51:29 -0600 From: Aaron Schrab To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Message-ID: <19981119115128.A381@fnord.guru.execpc.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.94.10i In-Reply-To: ; from Vince Sabio on Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 11:29:04PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 23:29 -0500 18 Nov 1998, Vince Sabio wrote: > In short, munging (or adding) the REPLY-TO header has some very nice > benefits -- most notably (and then I'll step down off my soap box), > lists that DO NOT implement a REPLY-TO header require that you > perform a "group" reply, also known as a "reply to all." This includes No, it's your mailer that requires you to do that. My mailer (Mutt) has a list-reply function. I used it to start this message, and it's going just to the list with no editing on my part. I say the answer isn't lists that take the choice away from the users, but smarter software. -- Aaron Schrab aaron@schrab.com http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/ [Coca-Cola] isn't great, but it's better than religion. At least Coke gives you something. -- Penn Jillette From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 10:51:11 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA07454; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:32:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA07445 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.228.155.84] (helo=A470.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zgZ7M-0002dY-00 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:47:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 15253 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 1998 22:24:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19981118222429.A15244@A470.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:24:29 +0000 From: Darren Wyn Rees To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Good Mailing List Services References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from VINAY TALWAR on Mon, Nov 02, 1998 at 12:51:41PM +0500 Organization: ansyber blycheidiau dynwaredol hifflo llwybrwr mewnfwriol X-PGP: finger merlin@netlink.co.uk for key X-PGP-812C54B1: F8 79 5E 84 F0 20 A5 62 FA 2D E9 BD BE 06 7D 10 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Nov 02, 1998 at 12:51:41PM +0500, VINAY TALWAR wrote: > We are starting a mailing list for one of our customers which is expected > to reach a strength of 15,000 subscribers within the next 6 to 9 months. > > Can the knowledgeable people here let me know which mailing list service > would be best in a situation like this. Depends what is your purchase /criteria/ eg. Do you want or need commercial support? Are you willing to pay for that extra? Are you looking for a proven product? (like Majordomo). > What are the parameters that one should keep in mind while deciding on the > list hosting service ? First question... What /system/ will you use to run your /MLM/ ? What type of /software/ have you got there? If you're using Sendmail then you will not be able to use EZMLM. On the other hand, if you're using Qmail, then EZMLM seems like a good option. Looking at your own software/hardware system is a start. It is certainly an important parameter to consider. :D -- Darren Wyn Rees The Welsh Verb Emporium http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/merlin/berfau/ From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 12:05:25 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA08684; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA08666 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:51:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from Venus.mcs.net (dattier@Venus.mcs.net [192.160.127.92]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id OAA26542 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:06:50 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Venus.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id OAA05195 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:06:50 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811192006.OAA05195@Venus.mcs.net> Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:06:49 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Vince Sabio" at Nov 18, 98 11:29:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Vince Sabio pontificated, | [lots of misguided nonsense in favor of munging Reply-To:, capped by a | boast about his ability to bias a poll] I'm withholding my opinions and sticking to facts and experiences here. | Look, if | you're not bright enough to pay attention when composing e-mail, you | really have no business running a mailing list. (And if anyone quotes | my message from the one time that I did that on one of my lists, I'm | REALLY gonna get ticked. ;-) No quoting necessary. Even Mr. Sabio has found default-to-sender less damaging than default-to-list. Here are the points I try to make when this comes up: 1. Clobbering Reply-To: destroys any Reply-To: address that the poster supplied, often making it impossible to send a private response when one wishes to and the From: address (assuming that From: is preserved) is the wrong place to send it. 2. Almost every list has some members who insist on one way and some members who insist on the other. Because of #2, on my list I offer forced Reply-To: as an option (and because of my personal stand on the issue, it is not the default). Because of #1, when people take that option, they get an X-Author-Reply-To: header showing the reply address of the original post, even if it matches From: (unless the original submission had a Reply-To: matching or including the list's submis- sion address, in which case all reflector-mode subscribers get the author's supplied Reply-To:). Now, I've never seen another list that preserves an incoming reply address upon munging; they all strip it out. My list has a sublist where, against my own reluctance, I used to point replies to the sublist (including X-Author-Reply-To: headers). The results were disastrous with inappropriate personal replies going every which way. 3. If a submitter to a non-munging list wants replies posted, he or she can point Reply-To: to the list on his or her own submission. If a submitter to a list that munges wants private replies or replies to any particular place other than the list's submission address, he or she can say so in the body and repeat it and plead until the cows come home, but the article will still end up in subscribers' mailboxes with Reply-To: aimed squarely at the list and that's where most of them will send responses. I guarantee you that if you post to a reply-to-sender list, and you want only public replies, and you put "Reply-To: listaddress" on your submission, then the only way you'll get the effect of a group reply is for the respondent to go to great pains. Otherwise, you'll never see a direct copy of a public reply to your post. It is interesting that, for all his distaste for the effects of group re- plies, Sabio did not point Reply-To: to the list on his own post. That would have spared him the horror and pain. Though he doesn't deserve anyone else's effort to take up his slack, I did, and this post is going solely to the list. So much for his saying that reply-to-sender lists force group replies with superfluous direct copies. But it's much easier to take addresses out than to add them. Starting a group reply to a reply-to-sender list allows us that. 4. When an intended public response on a reply-to-sender list is mistakenly mailed privately to the preceding author, the respondent can remail it to the list or ask the preceding author to forward it; at the very worst, the respondent can retype it. But when an intended private response to a post on a reply-to-list list is mistakenly sent out to the whole membership, it cannot be rectified. In fact, its excess bandwidth use is usually compounded with another post whose sole content is a public apology for the previous post. I won't contradict Miles Fidelman's position that some lists are better off one way and some the other. In my experiences as a list maintainer and as a list subscriber, I've yet to see any case where munging helped more than it hurt, but that doesn't mean that the other situation cannot exist. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 12:35:48 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA09145; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mw2.texas.net (mw2.texas.net [206.127.30.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA09136 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.kxan.com (kxan.com [207.207.6.50]) by mw2.texas.net (2.4/2.4) with SMTP id OAA09063 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:35:59 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:35:59 -0600 (CST) From: Micah Thompson To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: <199811191445.IAA00646@unicom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Chip Rosenthal wrote: > By the way, note this message is addressed only to the list. I > did my Elm g)roup reply, and used an xterm cut-n-paste to move the > Cc: to the To:. It's a little more work, but way easier than trying > to reply to the author on a munged list. Depends on the mail client I suppose. I use good ol' pine, and I _love_ lists that use the reply-to-list feature. Pine asks if you want to use the reply-to instead of the sender address when you reply, and if you answer the prompts correctly, you can reply to the list, sender, or both without cutting/pasting. After doing it over and over, it's automatic to me, and I've never sent a private message to a list. Works well for me because probably 95% of my replies always go to the list, not sender. OTOH, without reply-to, as this list is setup, there is no way to reply ONLY to the list without cutting and pasting. Like just now, I had the choice of sending back to Chip, or to Chip, and cc'ing the list. That's all. PITA, IMO. Maybe it's your email client not reply-to that's screwed up. ;) All the lists I run will always use reply-to, despite that diatribe on that web page saying how bad it is. YMMV, IMO, my $.0002 cents worth, yada yada. laters, Micah Thompson Computer System Manager WebMaster KXAN-TV 36, NBC Affiliate, http://www.kxan.com KNVA-TV 54, WB Affiliate, http://www.knva.com Austin, TX From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 13:22:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA09835; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA09814 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from Default (pool042-max2.ds10-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.7.142]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15662 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:21:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:21:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811192121.NAA15662@goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net> X-Sender: sbrooks@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Sam Brooks Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Question for the group. I'm being given a list of email addresses, approx 7000 in all. Need to get them into my members file. I'm told the addresses are 'comma separated' Will MJ accept a comma separated file? Or what would be the easiest way to get them into a recognizable format for MJ? Appreciate your help. Never had to deal with this before. Sam sbrooks@earthlink.net From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 13:35:48 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10015; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA10008 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa23236; 19 Nov 98 13:39 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 19 Nov 98 12:34:22 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 12:13:52 PST In-Reply-To: Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've been around this circuit before, as have some of you. I've taken the tour of the site which supposedly reveals the wisdom of the Reply-To pointing to the sender. I am singularly unconvinced. A general discussion group is a garden party, and you would not have your default response to a speaker in such a setting jimmied so that any reply required one to pull the speaker off into a corner of the lot so nobody else might overhear. You are entitled to respond, in a free and open assembly, in the same manner and with the same volume as the original declaration which provoked your reaction, and that should be the default. I suspect the listowner who insists all replies go privately to the individual writer is more concerned with the yardwork involved with the list than the subject at hand. It is much easier if only the comments of those who had been there long enough to know to hit the `reply all' feature (or indeed those with the diligence to learn any feature which was not the most automatic) would be presented in a setting with heavy traffic. For other than the discussion forums, mileage varies. NerdNosh is actually a daily 'zine, so there are essentially no replies at all, and someone who cannot learn that pretty quickly usually has not much to contribute anyway. (The reply-to in my case points to the listowner; this avoids the need to pick the odd `hey d00d where do i send stories?'s out of the hopper.) This, too. Any formula which sends a writer two copies of any and every reply is broke. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 14:05:48 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10294; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:46:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA10287 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA155232923; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199811192202.AA155232923@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:03 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This seems to be degenerating into a discussion of what the people on this list find easier to work with. As an experienced e-mail user, which most of us here presumably are, I don't so much mind having to over-ride the reply-to: header when it ass-u-me-s the wrong thing. I know how to read headers and if they're not what I want I change them. What really bothers me about reply-to:, and I know bothers a lot of people, is that there are lots and lots of e-mail newbies around who don't know how to edit headers, and blindly assume that their mailer's reply feature will somehow read their mind and do whichever function they were thinking of when they clicked it. I am on a couple of lists that are not about technical subjects (one is music related, the other is a support group) that are by and large inhabited by the technically clueless. The amount of personal reply mail cluttering these two lists is staggering. The inhabitants have largely grown accustomed to it, same as they have grown accustomed to waiting in traffic jams if they live in an area that has outgrown its highway system. Those who can't take the volume uns_bscribe and the group is poorer with their loss. Just because the inhabitants have grown accustomed doesn't mean that they wouldn't be happier growing accustomed to a different reality. One in which the two reply functions their mailer presents them with actually perform different functions. -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 14:37:19 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA10564; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA10556 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mars.mcs.net (Mars.mcs.net [192.160.127.85]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id QAA06919 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:18:53 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mars.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id QAA16148 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:18:52 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811192218.QAA16148@Mars.mcs.net> Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:18:52 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Vince Sabio" at Nov 19, 98 10:08:18 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Vince Sabio wrote, still not directing replies where he says he wants them, | Rather than decry one or the other, why not just leave it up to the users? Why not leave it up to the user, singular? I'm on one list where, in its second week, the listowner gave in to a cadre of newbies who admittedly understood neither the concept of group-replying nor, for some of them, even the idea of a private reply to a post, and who whined that they didn't know how to get the list's address into their mailers when they wanted to respond publicly; if they were to start a fresh message to the list, then they didn't know how to quote the article to which they were responding. So he reconfigured it to clobber Reply-To:. That list is loaded to this day with misaddressed private messages and with follow-up apologies for them. If that's not a problem on Mac-L, hurray for Mac-L. But on that list, leaving it up to the users was not a good idea. Hitler first got into political office on a fair vote in a free election. While (as those who know me would expect) I have procmail strip out the offending Reply-To: on my subscription copies of that list's posts, I receive it on two ISPs so that I can post from either address and so that if either is down I can still receive that list. One of the ISPs, however, has flaky NFS, and my mail folders there frequently get hosed, so my .forward stashes mail in the spool with "\dattier" as well as piping to procmail. Of course, the backup copy in my mail spool has the munged Reply-To: unchanged. Now, my mistake is keeping two differing versions. Last week I replied to my spool copy, thinking it was my folder copy, and wrote to the list instead of the previous author. I realized it a moment later, and fortunately the content was of arguable public interest, so there was no embarrassment. The damage was negligible, but still, if I could have set my own subscription to unmunged, it would not have happened. Another problem with Reply-To: clobbering on that list: there is one frequent poster to whom I cannot write privately. Both his From: address and the address in his .signature bounce. If he includes a Reply-To: with a working address, I never see it because the list removes it. Thus whenever I have anything to say to him, I must share it with the whole list. If he has yet another address, I can't ask him for it without asking the rest of the list to listen to the question. If he does use a Reply-To: line, and I could set my own subscription to un- munged, I'd be able to see it and use it. (There is absolutely NO rationalization for stripping out a Reply-To: address supplied by the poster. Rename it if you insist on forcing Reply-To: to the list, but do not remove it.) One last thing, Vince: if you had pointed Reply-To: back to this list on your own posts, then all the supporting private responses that you wish were pub- lic would have been posted publicly, yet most of the disagreeing private re- sponses would still have been private. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 14:50:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11173; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA11164 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/best.sh) id OAA13668; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:50:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:50:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811192250.OAA13668@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: sbrooks@earthlink.net CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: <199811192121.NAA15662@goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net> (message from Sam Brooks on Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:21:29 -0800 (PST)) Subject: switching subscriber file formats Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk There are many ways to change one kind of list into another kind. I will give you examples for two possible ways. I don't know what MJ is so I am going to guess and assume you want to change from (if my guess is wrong, just adjust the recommendation): cnorman@best.com, sbrooks@earthlink.net, cnorman@best.com, sbrooks@earthlink.net, cnorman@best.com, sbrooks@earthlink.net to: cnorman@best.com sbrooks@earthlink.net cnorman@best.com sbrooks@earthlink.net cnorman@best.com sbrooks@earthlink.net Way #1: Emacs from a unix shell. Pull the file up in emacs. Make sure you're at the beginning of the file. Type: control-x ( [this starts recording a macro] Type: control-s , control-f delete delete carriage-return Type: control-x ) [this ends recording a macro] Type: control-x e [make sure it works. if not, start over] Type: control-u 7000 control-x e [to do it 7000 times] control-x control-s will save the file control-x control-c will exit emacs [Note: delete means hit the delete or backspace key control-* means hold down the control key and hit the letter carriage-return should be obvious otherwise, type all characters as written] Way #2: Microsoft Word from your Mac or PC. Pull up the file in Word. Set it so you can see carriage returns. Open the replace function (command-h on a mac). Change from: , [that's a comma and a space] Change to: ^p [this works on a mac, not sure about a pc. It means "carriage return." If in doubt, cut and paste a carriage return into the box. Replace all. Save file as text with line breaks and exit. I hope there's no errors in my suggestions but if there are, just fix them. This should give you a starting off point. As I said, this is just 2 ways out of many many many. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com _________________________ Owner of the Immune Lists http://www.best.com/~immune From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 15:25:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA11679; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA11659 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02751 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:14:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:14:34 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A lot of this discussion seems to focus on very large, public lists. I run a bunch of small, closed lists for work groups and collaborators - where, as a matter of policy, we want everyone to see all traffic. So, reply-to-group is a good tool for enforcing this policy - we WANT it to be hard to send a personal message. Just another example that what makes sense for reply-to is a situational issue, not one of ideology. ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director of Civic Networking Systems 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 16:10:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA12402; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:49:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotel.uws.EDU.AU (hotel.uws.EDU.AU [137.154.40.110]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA12395 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:48:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from tonyfathers.uws.edu.au ([137.154.42.168]) by hotel.uws.EDU.AU (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA08435 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:04:38 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19981120110449.00812280@hotel.uws.edu.au> X-Sender: anthonyf@hotel.uws.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:04:49 +1100 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Tony Fathers Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: References: <199811191445.IAA00646@unicom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I offer reply to list or reply to sender as options for all our lists. List owner gets to decide. Different groups have different needs, and as far as I can see having a choice works fine. I can see the potential problems of munging, but we haven't had any. Tony F From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 16:23:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA12023; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:23:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id PAA12006 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:23:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12626; Thu, 19 Nov 98 15:39:22 PST Received: from tardis by Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 19 Nov 98 15:39:22 PST Received: from romana.Tymnet.COM by tardis.Tymnet.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18837; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:39:20 -0800 Received: from romana by romana.Tymnet.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01549; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:39:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199811192339.PAA01549@romana.Tymnet.COM> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:39:20 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Smith Reply-To: Joe Smith Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Md5: nab3WMohW2L+0+P69Pju6g== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.0 CDE Version 1.2 SunOS 5.6 sun4m sparc Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the current debate, when one person says "REPLY-TO-LIST", another immediately replies "reply-to munging is evil". I understand that with some versions of MLM software, those two topics are intimately intertwined, but does it have to be that way? Aren't we really talking about two items that technically could be separate? I'd like to bring up two questions that hopefully have numeric answers. Q: What percentage of list members actually put (or attempt to put) a "Reply-To:" header into messages posted to the list? Q: Are there any MLM programs out there that can be configured to put in a default "Reply-To: listaddress" only if the poster does not put in an explicit "Reply-To:" header? I agree that reply-to munging is bad if the user has inserted a Reply-To: header that is different from the From: header. I also agree that reply-to-list is better for a social list. >From my point of view, those two items should be independent. Is it possible to do both? Set the Reply-To: header on outgoing messages to point to the list if the incoming message has no Reply-To: header? Joe Smith MCI WorldCom, Network Management, Product Technical Support UNIX and Tech Sup: TYMNET Network, Xstream Packet Services (Public X.25) 2560 N 1st St, MS-5046/746, San Jose, CA 95131 Voice: vnet 854-6220 = 408-922-6220 Fax: vnet 854-6702 = 408-922-6702 From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 16:42:07 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA13010; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:26:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA13003 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:25:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA28689 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:41:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA17557 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:41:45 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:41:44 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Please let this thread fade . This is a religious issue. No one is going to be converted by any argument, flaming or rational. Let it go. - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 16:54:11 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA12962; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from scientia.demon.co.uk (scientia.demon.co.uk [212.228.14.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA12955 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ben by scientia.demon.co.uk with local (Exim 2.053 #6) id 0zgbmD-0002mD-00; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:38:09 +0000 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:38:09 +0000 From: Ben Smithurst To: murr rhame Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Message-ID: <19981119213808.A10399@scientia.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/0.94.12i (FreeBSD/3.0-CURRENT) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk murr rhame wrote: > For a viable discussion list, you're going to have to munge either > the From: line or The Reply To: line. Bollocks[tm]. This is a perfectly good discussion list, and has no reply-to set. Neither do the FreeBSD lists I'm subscribed to, and they're just as effective. I don't hate Reply-To: as much as some people seem to, but it does get on my nerves sometimes. If I press `r' in my mail program, I expect this to go to the author; if I press `g' I expect it to do a group reply. > Don't worry about how other lists are set up. Be happy. Sounds like a good idea... -- Ben Smithurst ben@scientia.demon.co.uk send a blank message to ben+pgp@scientia.demon.co.uk for PGP key From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 17:07:05 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA13475; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id QAA13462 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12020 invoked by uid 10086); 20 Nov 1998 01:11:33 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:11:33 -0600 (CST) From: Ray Jones cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Vince Sabio wrote: > Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my > lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the > list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST. > In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of > REPLY-TO-LIST. Same on my list. > I'm running lists for my subscribers, not for some clown who wants to > mention RFC822 as if it decries Reply-To munging, (it doesn't), and then > spreads FUD by saying "Email handling is surprisingly complicated, and even > an innocuous-sounding change might have grave, unintended consequences." > Bullhockey. E-mail is one of the most straightforward things on the planet, > it nearly predates the existence of hair ferchrissake, and if the author > of that document really believes his own FUD, he shouldn't be running > mailing lists. I'm with you. > I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL > minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up > for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit. You may be in the minority, but I'm there with you. Like many others here, I've been around since almost before e-mail. Well, not quite (g) but I've been into electonic communications for close to 20 years. Over those years, I've heard all of the problems, discussions, rants, raves and so on, BUT except for one guy who just doesn't understand e-mail even though he's very bright otherwise, I've never had ANY problems of ANY KIND. His problem is just the opposite. He replies privately when he means it to go the the list. You can never win them all. I've not even had a problem where anyone sent personal e-mail to the list. In addition, I've had very few problems with people who can't figure out how to subscribe or unsubscribe. I guess we New Orleanians are just smarter than some. (g) -- Regards, "Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide ICQ UIN 1473313 Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans" ISBN 0-02-862303-7 Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending: subscribe noml To: majordomo@communique.net /"\ \ / X ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail / \ From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 18:06:09 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA14265; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA14250 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA33720 ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:06:02 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "Jeanne"'s message of "Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:15:18 -0600" <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:53:19 -0800 To: Vince Sabio , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:08 AM -0500 11/19/98, Vince Sabio wrote: >>be my guest. Just understand that you're wrong.... (grin) > > In all seriousness, though (okay, I know you were serious, Chuq, but > just go with me on this ), I really think that it's a matter of > preference. I'll more or less agree. I think it's also strongly driven by the list content. There are times when it *is* appropriate to coerce reply-tos. We do this, for instance, on beta-test lists at apple, because the entire purpose is to make sure the discussions get onto the list. But I used to be a strong coercion constituent. I've run lists both ways -- in fact, over time, I've run THE SAME lists both ways in many cases, as I've tried things out and dealt with various technical issues (like listproc 6.0c's braindeadedness....). And so I've got some good, solid experience and history to go beyond "matter of preference" and "I like" stuff. And for the typical conversational list, I feel coercion of reply-to is wrong in almost all cases. And I'll drop it at that, since all I'd do now is repeat what I wrote yesterday, and if I didn't persuade folks then, I won't bore them by trying again.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 18:21:24 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA14693; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:10:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from x (isp96.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.26.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA14595 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:05:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:05:44 -0800 (PST) From: jge@dynamite.com.au Message-Id: <199811200205.SAA14595@honor.greatcircle.com> Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk this message (brought to you by telnet) may illustrate (if it indeed gets to the list) how much munging happens on the way. It is sent directly to greatcircle and only has one solitary header as I type (ie the Subject). Don't ask me what will happen when you try to reply to it! From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 19:02:22 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA14936; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:26:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA14927 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:26:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA28534 ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:44:54 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199811192006.OAA05195@Venus.mcs.net> References: from "Vince Sabio" at Nov 18, 98 11:29:04 pm Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:18:27 -0800 To: "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:06 PM -0600 11/19/98, David W. Tamkin wrote: > 1. Clobbering Reply-To: destroys any Reply-To: address that the poster > supplied, often making it impossible to send a private response when one I'm of the opinion, by the way, that list software should strip a reply-to from an incoming message before distribution, whether or not it coerces its own reply-to. First, it can be very confusing to end users, and second, it can lead to all sorts of problems and/or pimps. > I won't contradict Miles Fidelman's position that some lists are better off > one way and some the other. One thing I think is *very* important, is consistency. I think if you're running a number of lists on a server, they really ought to be set up the SAME way, unless they're completely independent of each other of you have a fairly knowledgable group of users. Because one thing that really, really drives new users crazy is the "well, it worked that way yesterday" thing, because stuff magically cahnges out from under them and they don't know why. We should probably keep in mind that people who deal with small, stable lists and/or lists with more experienced sets of users can get away with things that people with open lists, lists that turn over subscribers, or lists that have/cater-to newer, less experienced net users can do. When you're dealing with people who don't know how to de-coerce a reply-to, it's a lot different than dealing with people who simply find it a pain in the neck. Of course, as the net continues to mainstream, lists that used to be fairly technologically sophisticated in their subscriber base will find this creeping up behind them. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 19:34:58 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA15729; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.111]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id TAA15722 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:24:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811200324.TAA15722@honor.greatcircle.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:37:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Q: Are there any MLM programs out there that can be configured to > put in a default "Reply-To: listaddress" only if the poster does > not put in an explicit "Reply-To:" header? Yes, LISTSERV. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 21:49:58 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA17792; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:11:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA17784 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:11:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from donald.cybercomm.nl (donald.cybercomm.nl [194.235.113.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA01341 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:16:01 -0800 (PST) From: technic@cybercomm.nl Received: from norad (poort198-ip-x2.enertel.cybercomm.nl [194.235.118.198]) by donald.cybercomm.nl (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA02503 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:32:00 -0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199811172032.TAA02503@donald.cybercomm.nl> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:31:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk lists From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 22:05:06 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA18032; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:14:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA18023 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id XAA26700 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20631 invoked by uid 666); 19 Nov 1998 07:22:18 -0000 Date: 19 Nov 1998 07:22:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19981119072218.20629.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging References: <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Vince Sabio writes: > "reply to all." This includes the original author in the reply. There's a way to fix that problem without screwing up reply-to-author. See http://pobox.com/~djb/proto/replyto.html. ---Dan 1000 recipients, 28.8 modem, 10 seconds. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/mini.html From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 22:19:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA17651; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA17643 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from findmail.com (m5.findmail.com [209.185.96.141]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA23670 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3444 invoked by uid 505); 15 Nov 1998 21:36:46 -0000 Date: 15 Nov 1998 21:36:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19981115213646.3443.qmail@findmail.com> Received: from 209.240.200.18 (via http) from to list "list-managers" From: "Ryan Cross" Subject: Anyone on egroups.com? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I thought I'd introduce myself. I'm an active egroups user, AKA CosmicEgg@webtv.net. This address is for my list managing purposes. My most recent list is for list managers on egroups. If you recieve HTML look below to sign up for list-managers-e-groups@egroups.com. If you don't recieve html, send a blank message to any of the following addresses to sign up or the respective list. list-managers-e-groups-subscribe@egroups.com html--help-subscribe@egroups.com Those are my most popular ones. Also, I know some of you have extra lists you don't feel like running anymore. If you change the manager to List_Manager@webtv.net I promise to take care of it as if it was my own. How do you do this? If egroups: Go into policies. At the bottom of the page is a form to change the list moderator. If not egroups: Transfer list to egroups, then follow above directions. That's all for now. Ryan Cross From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 22:46:58 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA17426; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:00:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA17352 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23099 invoked by uid 10086); 20 Nov 1998 05:16:09 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:16:08 -0600 (CST) From: Ray Jones cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: <199811191445.IAA00646@unicom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Chip Rosenthal wrote: > By the way, note this message is addressed only to the list. I > did my Elm g)roup reply, and used an xterm cut-n-paste to move the > Cc: to the To:. It's a little more work, but way easier than trying > to reply to the author on a munged list. Hmmm..., when I reply to "this list" and don't want to send two copies to the sender as a result (using pine), I just "reply to all," cut the sender from the "To:" line completely and LEAVE the list address in the "CC:" field. There may be a reason not to do it this way, BUT it works just the same. If I REALLY want to send to the sender only, I just do a "simple reply" rather than "to all." -- Regards, "Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide ICQ UIN 1473313 Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans" ISBN 0-02-862303-7 Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending: subscribe noml To: majordomo@communique.net /"\ \ / X ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail / \ From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 22:50:42 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA18357; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA18342 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23950 invoked by uid 10086); 20 Nov 1998 05:45:51 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:45:51 -0600 (CST) From: Ray Jones cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Vince Sabio wrote: > >Here's how I look at it. From the point of view of the naive/new user, > >the Reply-To is impossible for them to over-ride. They don't know how, > >and that only encourages chaff and accidental posts, not to mention > >that users who want to reply privately can't. I think it depends on the mailer. Over the years I've used many (as most of us probably have) mailers. I THINK the majority of them are easy to reply to anyone you want. I do seem to recall some (mostly Fidonet mailers) that you either couldn't change or it was more difficult. Regardless, the purpose of a mailing list (at least the type I run) is for all the mail to go to "all of the list." It defeats the purpose of the list for mail to be sent "to the sender" rather than "to the list." If another discussion list has different criteria, then do it differently. I submit that there is no "one way" to do it. "Personal mail" isn't "list mail" and one shouldn't be trying to send a personal reply if they don't know how. Just ask and someone will tell you how to do it. It should be made clear in the welcome message that all mail goes to the list. I know everyone doesn't read or understand, but I can't solve all of the world's problems. I have enough problem with mine. -- Regards, "Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide ICQ UIN 1473313 Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans" ISBN 0-02-862303-7 Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending: subscribe noml To: majordomo@communique.net /"\ \ / X ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail / \ From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 23:20:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA17996; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA17984 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:13:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (news-ma.rhein-neckar.de [193.197.90.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA24367 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mips.rhein-neckar.de (uucp@localhost) by news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with bsmtp id EAA15574 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:34:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de) Received: by mips.rhein-neckar.de id m0zgI5n-000WyQC (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:37:03 +0100 (CET) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Path: not-for-mail From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Newsgroups: list.list.managers Subject: ``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful (was: Re: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture) Date: 19 Nov 1998 01:37:02 +0100 Lines: 28 Message-ID: <72vp7e$8k$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> References: <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test67 (15 July 1998) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In article , Justin Sheehy wrote: > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Chip are you on this list? I'm not quite happy with this text. It advocates the use of "group reply". That of course is part of the problem. When you send a group reply, it will go (1) to the author of the message you're responding to, and (2) to the list. However, the author of the original message is also on the list and thus will receive your reply twice. In fact, people have asked me to convert a list to munged Reply-To's in order to stop receiving answers twice. And those who press g)roup reply of course point out that they can't be bothered to edit the headers. There seems to be a dearth of MUAs that offer a convenient "reply to original addressee" function. The only thing that comes close I know of is mutt's special mailing list handling, where you need to specify a mailing list (mysteriously to me you must specify only the local part, i.e. that to the left of the '@') and then you can reply to the list with 'L'. With elm or pine you're stuck with simple reply/group reply, unless this has changed in recent versions. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de 100+ SF Book Reviews: From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 19 23:31:30 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA18106; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA18095 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23611 invoked by uid 10086); 20 Nov 1998 05:33:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:33:21 -0600 (CST) From: Ray Jones cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, murr rhame wrote: > Misdirected email is embarassing. Over the years, I've done it more > than once. In the most embarassing misdirected email incident I've I don't know if I've ever sent a "simple" mis-directed message, but I do have a very small digest of my list which rather than being done automatically, is done manually by me each day. I once included a rather "personal" message from someone to me in with the digest mail. (g) I figured "what the heck." It was only embarassing to me and I figured no one would comment. They didn't, but I've always made sure I looked more carefully after that. That's the way we learn. We fall down, pick ourselves back up and keep on going. > Even if you don't screw up, someone else may screw it up for you. No > matter where you send your email, chances are good that some of it > will be seen by "the wrong person". Very good point actually. If you WANT all of the replies to go "to the list" as I and my fellow list-members do, most will get it right if the "reply-to" field is set to the list. If the other way around, much of the mail meant "for the list" would be sent personally by mistake. OTOH, if the "reply-to" is left in the default it is less likely that a personal message will be sent "to the list." Either way, SOMONE is going to screw it up. As I said in a previous message, I do have "reply-to" set to the list as I and my list want it. I've never had anyone's personal reply make it to the list (I don't think) or if it did it wasn't anything really embarassing. One guy, however, ALWAYS winds up sending "list mail" to the "sender" anyway eve with the "reply-to" set to "list." No matter how you do it, someone will get it wrong. The heck of it is that the one person who always gets it wrong is very intelligent and has been told the right way to do it by many people. Perhaps it is his mailer (I don't know what he uses). Regardless, he NEVER gets it right and hasn't for years. OH well. (g) > The standard setup for all discussion mailing lists which I host is to > have the Reply To: pointing to the list address and the From: line > pointing to the author. For a viable discussion list, you're going to Same here. It works for me and my list. That's all that counts. I have no problem with those who feel otherwise. I think it is up to the individual list. There are some, however, who feel it should be only one way (theirs -g) or nothing. I know. I've heard the arguments. I can only say I've never had a problem, YET. If I do, I'll change it. > I've seen several discussion on this topic before. Those who have a > preference, tend to have very strong convictions. I doubt that anyone > will change their position based on a few emails seen on a list-admin > mailing list or an editorial posted on the web. Choose the setup you > think is best for your list. Don't worry about how other lists are > set up. Be happy. Exactly. This same discussion rears its ugly head every few months with the same results. -- Regards, "Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide ICQ UIN 1473313 Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans" ISBN 0-02-862303-7 Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending: subscribe noml To: majordomo@communique.net /"\ \ / X ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail / \ From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 02:06:31 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA22459; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 01:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA22451 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 01:54:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA20512; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05865; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:10:23 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 05:10:23 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Roger Fajman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: <199811200324.TAA15722@honor.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Roger Fajman wrote: > > Q: Are there any MLM programs out there that can be configured to > > put in a default "Reply-To: listaddress" only if the poster does > > not put in an explicit "Reply-To:" header? > > Yes, LISTSERV. Also LISTPROC and LYRIS. - murr - From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 03:48:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA25593; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:26:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA25584 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics (isp156.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.23.182.36]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20554 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:44:43 +1100 Message-Id: <199811201044.VAA20554@mail.dynamite.com.au> From: "John Evershed" To: Subject: Uniting the Centralist and the Federalists Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:50:53 +1100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk There are far more differences between lists than the way they implement the "Reply-To:" header (it can't be THAT important - IE4 mailer doesn't even have a way to set it, although IE3 did - dumbing down is progress!). Since the good old days when listserv and majordomo strutted the stage without opposition, other MLMs have appeared and chaos has emerged: Some lists take subscription addresses from the envelope, some from "From:"; some lists take names on subscription, most don't; some lists take commands on user, some on subject and some on body (and some on subject and body); some take multiple commands, some don't; some get confused by signatures, some don't; some do nothing on subscription, some confirm, some need a reply in 48 hours, some pass a token that you must remember when you unsubscribe; some preserve case, some don't; some accept abbreviated and alternative commands; some don't; some add "how to unsubscribe" footers, some don't; some refer you to a web page some don't; some can emulate other MLMs, some are aloof; some provide a "list-request" address, (and of these some are human addresses, some are robots), some don't provide this standard address; some allow administrators to morph them into arbitrary shapes by configuration options, some are inflexible. Some are obviously lists, with their X-Loop, Precedence and other non standard headers, while some ("zines" usually) look just like an email from a friend (header wise). Nearly every combination of {List address, List admin address, Personal address} can be found in each of the headers {"Return-Path:", "Sender:", "From:", "Reply-To:", "Errors-To:"}. Is it any wonder that users have trouble unsubscribing? BUT THE SOLUTION IS AT HAND... Example - unsubscribing (ie signing off, ie leaving): to quote some examples from RFC 2369 (the path to Unity).. List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe: (Use this command to get off the list) List-Unsubscribe: If every list used something like one of these examples, all the various permutations of list behaviours could be tolerated. Users could get off lists and eventually mail clients would be able to do it for them. Same goes for List-Help, List-Subscribe, List-Post, List-Owner, List-Archive and (from an IETF draft) List-Id headers. OK, here are the questions I must ask: - does LISTSERV have any plans of supporting RFC 2369? - does Majordomo have any plans of supporting RFC 2369? - Why would any owner of a list (eg Lyris) which DOES support this RFC 2369 ever opt to not include the "List-Unsubscribe:" header? - Where is the dictator who will force everybody to follow this RFC 2369 for their own good? From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 12:06:49 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02203; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from miles.greatcircle.com (miles.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.45]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA02195 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from prometheus.quickie.net (prometheus.quickie.net [151.197.81.230]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26386 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:03:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rabbi@localhost) by prometheus.quickie.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10413; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:02:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:01:56 -0500 (EST) From: "L. H. Sassaman" To: Aaron Schrab cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: <19981119115128.A381@fnord.guru.execpc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Aaron Schrab wrote: > At 23:29 -0500 18 Nov 1998, Vince Sabio wrote: > > In short, munging (or adding) the REPLY-TO header has some very nice > > benefits -- most notably (and then I'll step down off my soap box), > > lists that DO NOT implement a REPLY-TO header require that you > > perform a "group" reply, also known as a "reply to all." This includes > > No, it's your mailer that requires you to do that. My mailer (Mutt) has > a list-reply function. I used it to start this message, and it's going > just to the list with no editing on my part. > > I say the answer isn't lists that take the choice away from the users, > but smarter software. I use Pine 4.05. If I hit reply for a message that has a "reply-to" it first asks if I want to include the message in my response, then asks "Use "Reply-to:" instead of "From:" address?" If I say yes, it goes to the list. If I say no, it gives me the option to reply to all. I have plenty of choices...more choice than on lists without Reply-to munging. I am not arguing that there is a clear answer to this. I run several lists, and some have a "reply-to list", others have a "reply-to sender". It varies on your needs. But the idea that "reply-to" munging is a horrible thing is just plain old FUD. L. Sassaman System Administrator | "The end of order is Technology Consultant | the end of the world." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | Frank Black, "Millennium" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNlXKvD2K8bIJrApqEQIVUwCgqtnE/T/Z6cZdLz/InbRb1lh+aOIAnRQS vqGtGidRcVNd4rDFRJ92MNQR =WvYg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 12:23:35 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA02554; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from prometheus.quickie.net (prometheus.quickie.net [151.197.81.230]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA02525 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:11:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rabbi@localhost) by prometheus.quickie.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11786; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:26:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:26:45 -0500 (EST) From: "L. H. Sassaman" To: "David W. Tamkin" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: <199811192218.QAA16148@Mars.mcs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, David W. Tamkin wrote: > But on that list, leaving it up to the users was not a good idea. Hitler > first got into political office on a fair vote in a free election. Ah hah! Took longer than I thought. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is officially dead. L. Sassaman System Administrator | "The end of order is Technology Consultant | the end of the world." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | Frank Black, "Millennium" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNlXQjT2K8bIJrApqEQK9ngCfUqIutf26RmFlkMpPislJnXAyYXUAoKzP vOS+QefFIrbAFbbSZ9qafACw =WGyl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 14:37:29 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03694; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA03685 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id QAA00944; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:29:31 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id QAA06762; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:29:30 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811202229.QAA06762@Jupiter.mcs.net> Subject: Re: misunderstanding of question marks by L. H. Sassaman To: rabbi@quickie.net (L. H. Sassaman) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:29:29 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: from "L. H. Sassaman" at Nov 20, 98 04:41:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I had asked -- note, ASKED, > Doesn't Godwin's Law declare a thread dead when one likens one's opponent to > a historical villain? L. H. Sassaman responded, | Nope. I quote: "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion | grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler | approaches one." OK. Yes, then Godwin's Law applies. | [Y]ou made a comparison between Hitler's election and the votes taken on | the "munging" issue. Yes, that I did. | Before you begin making up silly laws, and proclaiming to know the | dogma of Godwin, ... "Proclaiming to know"? Sassaman, surely you understand the difference be- tween a declarative sentence and an interrogative one. Yes, this thread is officially silly. At any rate, I am in favor of letting each user configure Reply-To: for his or her own subscription. I am also in favor of respecting the distinction between questions and proclamations. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 14:47:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03892; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA03851 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id QAA02021 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:45:05 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id QAA07089 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:45:05 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811202245.QAA07089@Jupiter.mcs.net> Subject: Cc: without To: Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:45:04 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Ray Jones" at Nov 19, 98 11:16:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ray Jones wrote, | Hmmm..., when I reply to "this list" and don't want to send two copies to | the sender as a result (using pine), I just "reply to all," cut the sender | from the "To:" line completely and LEAVE the list address in the "CC:" | field. There may be a reason not to do it this way, BUT it works just the | same. Indeed my copy of Ray's post arrived with no To: header and no Apparently-To: header either. I've always hesitated to do that because of concern about the Apparently-To: header. On a list I used to run a post once came in with no To:, and it went out with an Apparently-To: that catalogued the entire membership for all subscribers. I rapidly patched that hole, but on lists where I'm a posting subscriber and not the administrator I can't be sure what will happen. So I do take the trouble of putting the list's address (or my alias for it) into To:, even if I leave it in Cc:. This post is an exception; I'm trying Ray's method to see how it turns out. (Elm might move the list's address from Cc: to To: on its way out of here.) From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 16:50:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05616; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:39:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA05609 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA21747 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:55:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19981120195527.A21725@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:55:27 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Uniting the Centralist and the Federalists References: <199811201044.VAA20554@mail.dynamite.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <199811201044.VAA20554@mail.dynamite.com.au>; from John Evershed on Fri, Nov 20, 1998 at 10:50:53PM +1100 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I was under the impression that list-request@listhost.foo was required by RFC. (No, I can't recall the number offhand, even though we've discussed it here before. My archives of this list aren't available just at the moment or I'd go look.) Given that list-request is one of the oldest de facto 'net conventions, and given that it appears in RFC ???, I'd suggest that we try using it -- I mean REALLY using it, universally and consistently -- before trying anything else. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 17:11:03 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05672; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:45:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dsp.net (ns.dsp.net [199.4.121.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA05647 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.118.76.205] (icg-177.dsp.com [204.118.76.177]) by dsp.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA15049 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:01:11 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:01:34 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: pfaender@dsp.net (Stefan Pfaender) Subject: Economical Mailing list provider w/ archive feature? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello, I'm seeking a provider of mailing lists for an announcements only (newsletter) type (general-religious) mailing list with a permanent archive of previous postings. There are presently about 150 in the archive which I would repost to the new list (approx 2.5 Mb). (I manage this from home at the moment using Eudora). I want to make it easy for subscribers to find, identify and retrieve these files hopefully using an index file and file numbers in the archive listing (representing the dates of past issues going back to 1992, e.g., 92-07-25). Titles would be optional. Subscribers would ideally be able to use a "get" commands to retrieve back issues. Does Majordomo allow this or is there another satisfactory way to do what I want to do with the archive? Example of current Index: > > 93-10-26 16K Beyond the Greenhouse, Part I > > > > 93-12-02 10K Beyond the Greenhouse, Part II > > > > 93-12-12 33K How to Break Old Patterns > > and Bring True Solutions > > I'm very attracted to Majordomo providers because their lists seem to be inexpensive compared to L-Soft. My research has revealed that one such provider, named Esosoft, handles a lot of lists. Their servers are fast and they are reasonably priced ($5 per month up to 2500 subscribers). One drawback is that it's difficult to get responses to queries via e-mail from either their sales@ and their support@ addresses. This may change once I pay in advance for six months service. There are no telephone numbers listed, either. An example of an Esosoft list archive is shown below. At $5 per month I can imagine that there wouldn't be any variation from this pattern. Can anyone direct me to an economical alternative? Esosoft archive: >>>> index Law-Issues total 930 -rw-r--r-- 1 butter vuser 7850 Nov 20 03:57 CONTENTS -rw-r--r-- 1 butter vuser 5129 Nov 20 03:57 TOPICS -rw-rw---- 1 butter vuser 114916 Nov 15 23:49 law-issues.981115 -rw-rw---- 1 butter vuser 81007 Nov 16 23:20 law-issues.981116 -rw-rw---- 1 butter vuser 115045 Nov 17 21:57 law-issues.981117 -rw-rw---- 1 butter vuser 26112 Nov 18 20:40 law-issues.981118 -rw-rw---- 1 butter vuser 80773 Nov 19 23:22 law-issues.981119 -rw-rw---- 1 butter vuser 9649 Nov 20 10:44 law-issues.981120 >>>> >>>> Best regards, Stefan Palo Alto, CA pfaender@dsp.net From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 20 21:55:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA07930; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from prometheus.quickie.net (prometheus.quickie.net [151.197.81.230]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA07923 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:35:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rabbi@localhost) by prometheus.quickie.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA10443; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:51:45 -0500 Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:51:31 -0500 (EST) From: "L. H. Sassaman" To: "David W. Tamkin" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Perfect understanding of question marks by L. H. Sassaman In-Reply-To: <199811202229.QAA06762@Jupiter.mcs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, David W. Tamkin wrote: > I had asked -- note, ASKED, Indeed you did...in this paragraph. > > Doesn't Godwin's Law declare a thread dead when one likens one's opponent to > > a historical villain? [snip discussion of Godwin's Law] > | Before you begin making up silly laws, and proclaiming to know the > | dogma of Godwin, ... > > "Proclaiming to know"? Sassaman, surely you understand the difference be- > tween a declarative sentence and an interrogative one. Yes, this thread is > officially silly. I certainly do know. However, if I may quote from your second paragraph: *> one. I hereby invoke Sassaman's Law, according to which a thread is *> officially silly as soon as someone invokes Godwin's Law by mistake. In this paragraph you invoke a law of your own creation, which, in effect, *declares* that Godwin's law has been invoked by mistake. Which is the same as stating that Godwin's Law had been invoked wrongly. Which leads us to believe that you believe yourself to know what Godwin's Law is declaring (in order for you to know when it is being misused). And since I was the only one doing the invoking, your statement comes to mean "Sassaman has invoked Godwin's Law by mistake." Which was not true. However, I do whole-heartedly agree that this thread is now beyond silly. > At any rate, I am in favor of letting each user configure Reply-To: for his > or her own subscription. I am also in favor of respecting the distinction > between questions and proclamations. So am I...perhaps you should brush up on that distinction? ;) L. Sassaman System Administrator | "The end of order is Technology Consultant | the end of the world." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | Frank Black, "Millennium" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNlZU7j2K8bIJrApqEQLy8wCgw2WuA/pI9nGt/Yuh4rjjZ23TicQAniF+ onT+6/WF/32WYZ6tpLL941jJ =Z72v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 21 01:14:47 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA10443; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA10434 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 00:57:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics (isp267.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.27.27]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA31850 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:15:22 +1100 Message-Id: <199811210815.TAA31850@mail.dynamite.com.au> From: "John Evershed" To: Subject: Re: Uniting the Centralist and the Federalists Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:22:04 +1100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > ..Given that list-request is one of the oldest de facto 'net conventions, > and given that it appears in RFC ???, I'd suggest that we try > using it -- I mean REALLY using it, universally and consistently -- > before trying anything else. > I agree it should be used universally. The RFC is 2142 and I have quoted it below for interest. RFC 2369 suggests using the at least the "List-Help:" and preferably the "List-Unsubscribe:" headers IN ADDITION to the use of a list-REQUEST mailbox - the RFC stresses that it does NOT replace the list-REQUEST mailbox. These new headers give a URL (usually ) and I reckon they would be a tremendously useful uniting force. Q: Why aren't these new "List-xxx:"headers being implemented and used much? Quote from RFC 2142 (common mailbox names).. 6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop requests and other meta-queries can be sent. For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is: there MUST be the administrative mailbox name: Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox names requires participants to know the type of list software employed at the site. This is problematic. Consequently: LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED, INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE MAILBOX NAMES. End of quote from RFC 2142. PS a lovely internet draft laying down all sorts of prescriptions for IETF mailing lists (eg munging practices etc) is: draft-moore-maillist-req-01.txt "Requirements for IETF Mailing Lists" From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 21 01:58:34 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA11643; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from siberia.demon.co.uk (siberia.demon.co.uk [158.152.123.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA11595 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:29:33 -0800 (PST) Path: siberia.demon.co.uk!claire Message-ID: <199811210148.claire.98113777@siberia.demon.co.uk> From: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:48:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: ``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful (was: Re: from a "ce Reply-to: Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk In-reply-to: <72vp7e$8k$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) via PM-Demon V4.04 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 19 Nov 98 at 1:37, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > There seems to be a dearth of MUAs that offer a convenient "reply > to original addressee" function. The only thing that comes close I > know of is mutt's special mailing list handling, where you need to > specify a mailing list (mysteriously to me you must specify only > the local part, i.e. that to the left of the '@') and then you can > reply to the list with 'L'. With elm or pine you're stuck with > simple reply/group reply, unless this has changed in recent > versions. I'm wary of joining in now that Godwin's law has been invoked , but there is another mailer that offers this: Pegasus Mail for Windows, which in addition to the normal mode in which it presents a choice of reply-to-all or reply-to-Reply-to (IYGWIM), also offers an "advanced reply options" mode allowing you to choose betwen From: To:, Cc:, Reply-To: and Sender: fields -- or "all recipients". It's such a simple thing to implement that I'm amazed that more mailers don't offer such a facility. This facility is one of the many neat features of Pegasus which makes me stick with it rather than switching to Linux. As to the substance of the thread, all my lists have reply-to munged to the list, and it works fine -- tho I can see that other lists might be different. I just wish that we could avoid clogging up list-managers with these religious arguments, and accept that it's horses-for-courses. Best wishes, Claire -- Claire McNab -- Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 21 13:22:36 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA19420; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA19413 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mercury.mcs.net (dattier@Mercury.mcs.net [192.160.127.80]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id PAA19886 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:09:19 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mercury.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id PAA22888 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:09:19 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811212109.PAA22888@Mercury.mcs.net> Subject: -request requirement Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:09:19 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <19981120195527.A21725@gsp.org> from "Rich Kulawiec" at Nov 20, 98 07:55:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote, | I was under the impression that list-request@listhost.foo was | required by RFC. (No, I can't recall the number offhand, even | though we've discussed it here before. My archives of this list | aren't available just at the moment or I'd go look.) Given | that list-request is one of the oldest de facto 'net conventions, | and given that it appears in RFC ???, I'd suggest that we try | using it -- I mean REALLY using it, universally and consistently -- | before trying anything else. The question still remains of exactly how to use it. As John Evershed has quoted for us from RFC 2142, it is required that list-request exist for receipt of administrative mail, but there are no specifications of how it should handle the mail that comes to it. From John's quote from the RFC: > Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop > requests and other meta-queries can be sent. For a mailing list whose > submission mailbox name is: there MUST be the administrative > mailbox name: Note the wording "to which ... can be sent." It doesn't say "at which ... will be processed." It would appear that list-request could be just an autoresponder that sends a help file and still comply with RFC 2142. From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 21 15:12:59 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA20395; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA20388 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:44:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mercury.mcs.net (dattier@Mercury.mcs.net [192.160.127.80]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA23219 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:00:24 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mercury.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id RAA24111 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:00:23 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811212300.RAA24111@Mercury.mcs.net> Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:00:23 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Tim Bowden" at Nov 19, 98 12:13:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Tim Bowden wrote, | A general discussion group is a garden party, and you would not have | your default response to a speaker in such a setting jimmied so that | any reply required one to pull the speaker off into a corner of the lot | so nobody else might overhear. You are entitled to respond, in a free | and open assembly, in the same manner and with the same volume as the | original declaration which provoked your reaction. A person present at such a party is also entitled to think of things to say that are off-topic or not of interest to the company at large but only to the one person to whom he or she wants to tell them, and to communicate those things privately (perhaps after the event rather than during it, but email is asynchronous anyway). Not all reactions engendered by a speech are relevant to and suitable for the free and open assembly. | For other than the discussion forums, mileage varies. There is a semantic conflict here: "should most replies to a public post be public or private?" is a different question from "should Reply-To: on a mail- ing list distribution default to the author or the list?" Chip Rosenthal's web page addressed only the latter as of the last time I read it. | Any formula which sends a writer two copies of any and every reply is broke. "Any and every reply"? Yes, such a formula is broken. Sometimes a direct copy of a public reply is warranted, but they are sent often when they are not needed. But conversely, any formula which sends out to the entire list membership anything and everything a reader wants to say -- unsubscribe requests, pri- vate responses that are way off-topic but are triggered because seeing the author's name reminded the reader that he or she had something to say to the author that was unrelated to the list, true public responses intended for all list members to see, or whatever else may come to the respondent's mind -- is also broken. So there you have it: both have their flaws. It's a question of which is worse, and I would tend to think that that must be determined by experience and history for each list; a blanket rule like "lists for discussion must clobber Reply-To:" will have exceptions. In an ideal world lists and MUAs would cooperate on different reply headers for writing to the list and for writing to the author. Some list software and some MUAs already support that, I'm told. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 10:42:50 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA01808; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:14:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA01801 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:14:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.228.155.84] (helo=A470.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zheGw-0007Zt-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:30:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 2350 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 1998 15:52:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19981122155216.A2345@A470.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:52:16 +0000 From: Darren Wyn Rees To: List Managers Subject: Re: Uniting the Centralist and the Federalists Mail-Followup-To: List Managers References: <199811210815.TAA31850@mail.dynamite.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: <199811210815.TAA31850@mail.dynamite.com.au>; from John Evershed on Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 08:22:04PM +1100 Organization: clasuron crecian dirnadol gorwen llyfiadau newyddiaduron X-PGP: finger merlin@netlink.co.uk for key X-PGP-812C54B1: F8 79 5E 84 F0 20 A5 62 FA 2D E9 BD BE 06 7D 10 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 08:22:04PM +1100, John Evershed wrote: > Q: Why aren't these new "List-xxx:"headers being implemented > and used much? because most ppl never read the headers of mail -- Darren Wyn Rees The Welsh Verb Emporium http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/merlin/berfau/ From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 13:11:56 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA03209; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA03201 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from epona.sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com. (epona.sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com [163.185.167.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id OAA20316 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [163.185.166.49] by epona.sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com. (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02485; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:52:01 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199811210900.BAA10597@honor.greatcircle.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 11:48:04 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Gary E. Bickford" Subject: Re: Silly thread thread Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:00 AM -0600 11/21/98, list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM (List-Managers-Dige wrote: >However, I do whole-heartedly agree that this thread is now beyond silly. So now, it's a thread about silly threads :) Sorry, couldn't resist. Back to lurking. Um. Well, if it was originally a thread about cones, it would now be the silly cone thread thread... I'm going!! I'm going!! GEB From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 13:24:06 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02877; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02868 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange.di.com (exchange.di.com [209.64.54.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA14586 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:05:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.di.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:21:32 -0800 Message-ID: From: Todd Day To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:21:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Anyone else notice that nowadays, Reply-To 's are often misconfigured? Seems that many ISPs are shipping installation software with something like or simply <@isp.com> in the Reply-To field of the mailer. I've seen this a lot recently. Sometimes, the From address is actually the correct one. I don't know how these people ever get replies from people who don't know how to chop thru the headers, but they sometimes leave it broken like that for months! Lovely, eh? -todd- From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 13:34:07 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02731; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02720 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:51:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ryker.aet.cup.edu (ryker.aet.cup.edu [158.83.35.249]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA03282 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by ryker.aet.cup.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4-1.2) with ESMTP id IAA10015 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:46:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:46:09 -0500 (EST) From: Randy Kosarik To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Configuration question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk How do I include or remove "forbiden" words from being sent across the list? I have looked through the documents and seem to be missing something.. One such word I want to allow would be "sub" "scribe" (as one word) in the body of the message.. Thanks in advance, -Randy _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Major : Computer Science _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Minor : Electronics _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Status: Senior _/_/_/ andy _/ _/ohn _/ _/osarik Email1: rkosarik@ryker.aet.cup.edu _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email2: randyk@access.hky.com _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ WWW : http://ryker.aet.cup.edu/~rkosarik From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 13:44:51 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02923; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02913 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from intelpo.sandiegoca.ncr.com (tan7.NCR.COM [192.127.94.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA18218 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bhoule@localhost) by intelpo.sandiegoca.ncr.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA06618 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:44:21 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Houle Message-Id: <199811200544.VAA06618@intelpo.sandiegoca.ncr.com> Subject: User Control (was Re: Reply-To Munging) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:44:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199811192218.QAA16148@Mars.mcs.net> from "David W. Tamkin" at Nov 19, 98 04:18:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David W. Tamkin said: > > Vince Sabio wrote, still not directing replies where he says he wants them, > | Rather than decry one or the other, why not just leave it up to the users? > Why not leave it up to the user, singular? Curious for a list-manager opinion: what if Reply-To were a per-user attribute on each list? That is, if the list-owner could set a default preference for the list, but each individual could alter according to taste? (This was discussed briefly for Mj2 functionality.) Ignoring the complexity required to implement, would you as list manager not like your global list setting to be overridden, or is it a good thing? --bill From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 13:59:57 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA03198; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA03187 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:56:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA17546 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3935 invoked by uid 666); 21 Nov 1998 16:36:58 -0000 Date: 21 Nov 1998 16:36:58 -0000 Message-ID: <19981121163658.3933.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: ``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful (was: Re: from a "centralist" to a "federal" list culture) References: <026901be0bfc$2487db60$0100000a@jeannean> <72vp7e$8k$1@mips.rhein-neckar.de> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Christian Weisgerber writes: > However, the author of the original message is also > on the list and thus will receive your reply twice. Solution, part 1: The author's MUA, knowing that the author is on the list, adds Mail-Followup-To showing the list name. Solution, part 2: Your MUA automatically sends followups to Mail-Followup-To instead of From+To+Cc. This is a simple matter of programming. It's already supported by mutt, for example. Ask your favorite MUA authors about Mail-Followup-To! In the meantime, I've also set up some active short-term protection for my own mailbox: |bouncesaying 'See pobox.com/~djb/docs/copies.html.' iftocc in `cat .lists` But that merely shifts the suffering. Mail-Followup-To eliminates it. ---Dan 1000 recipients, 28.8 modem, 10 seconds. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/mini.html From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 14:10:10 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02997; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02987 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA28438 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 06:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id IAA01906; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:12:04 -0700 (MST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: reply-to in Digests Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:12:13 -0500 Message-ID: <001701be1498$272938b0$037b7b0a@patroon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <199811200107.RAA13683@honor.greatcircle.com> Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ben Smithurst wrote: > Bollocks[tm]. This is a perfectly good discussion list, and has > no reply-to set. It does in Digest mode, which is the only way I (and possibly a numerical majority of members, although I'd have to check the roster) could put up with receiving it: || From: list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM (List-Managers-Digest) || To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM || Subject: List-Managers-Digest V7 #183 || Reply-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM I haven't seen it mentioned much, but people considering the pros and cons of this issue should keep Digest members in mind - their replies have to go somewhere. And they "count" just as much as individual-message members. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 14:27:51 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02865; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02857 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA13869 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.145.52.97] (adamb.tezcat.com [208.145.52.97]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id TAA04495 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:40:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199811200140.TAA04495@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:40:41 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/19/98 2:06 PM, David W. Tamkin wrote... >Here are the points I try to make when this comes up: > >1. Clobbering Reply-To: destroys any Reply-To: address that the poster > supplied, often making it impossible to send a private response when one > wishes to and the From: address (assuming that From: is preserved) is > the wrong place to send it. Some list management packages allow you to preserve a poster's Reply-To header if they supply one. This is my preferred method of handling this issue. (I realize the subject line refers to actively changing a supplied Reply-To, but discussion has covered the wide spectrum.) -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@tezcat.com | "Logic is the art of going wrong with adamkb@aol.com | confidence." - George Bernard Shaw Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb/ From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 14:49:08 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02910; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02900 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcc.net (150.pcc.net [206.135.217.150]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA16513 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from jeannean [209.101.118.130] by pcc.net (SMTPD32-4.06) id A43AB25027E; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:46:50 CDT From: "Jeanne" To: Subject: RE: Reply-To Munging Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:55:39 -0600 Message-ID: <000a01be1442$04a3e700$0100000a@jeannean> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Since I'm the person that started this whole thread (the most traffic I've seen since I subbed a few weeks ago!) I guess I can put in my two cents. I only manage one list but subscribe to many and from my viewpoint, I prefer technical lists be reply-to-list because too many times the solution to a common problem is worked out privately, depriving the list (and its archives) of valuable material. For support-type lists such as the one I manage, well, that's another thing entirely. My list has a very high WebTV populace and the members are always clamoring for reply-to-list. I originally posted here seeking good reasons for why not (and I've received many -- thank you) since I don't think this list should be munged. There's a lot of highly personal material addressed and I think the embarrassment would be horrific if it were set to list. Thanks for the tremendously enlightening discouse -- it's been great reading. :) Jeanne From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 14:57:26 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02854; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:52:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02844 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU (ncar.ucar.edu [192.52.106.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA11660 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:01:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811192317.QAA23033@ncar.ucar.EDU> Received: (from woods@localhost) by ncar.UCAR.EDU (8.9.1a/) id QAA23033 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:17:32 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:17:32 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <199811192218.QAA16148@Mars.mcs.net> from "David W. Tamkin" at Nov 19, 98 04:18:52 pm From: woods@ucar.edu (Greg Woods) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Hitler > first got into political office on a fair vote in a free election. OK, that's it. Time to invoke Godwin's Law: the usefulness of a debate is ended as soon as someone drags Hitler and the Nazis into it. Amazing how accurate that is; nothing against the person who actually is the one to do this, but by the time Hitler gets mentioned, the same points have usually been made ad nauseum on both sides and people are starting to resort to "arguing by extreme example". Attempting to associate one's opponent with Hitler, even very indirectly, seems to be a very common thing to happen at this point. It seems clear that this is largely a matter of personal preference. I generally don't subscribe to lists that have "reply to list" as the default, because despite the fact that I am a long-time net user and the postmaster of a mid-sized site, and therefore as entitled to claim myself an expert on e-mail as anyone, and despite the fact that Vince Sabio and others want to look down their noses at me, I have, in the past, sent replies that were supposed to be private to an entire mailing list, with embarassing results. I'm not an ignorant newbie, it's just *habit*. I can type "r" for a private reply, and "g" for a group reply. I'm used to it, and it is far too easy to make a mistake when the assumptions I am used to operating under are violated. I recognize the list owner's perrogative to run the list how s/he pleases, but as a list member, I can also express my own preference by not subscribing to lists with "reply to list" as the default. --Greg From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 15:04:18 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02783; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02772 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ag.ohio-state.edu (postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu [140.254.85.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA05520 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [140.254.85.8] (HELO forsaken) by ag.ohio-state.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 2.7) with SMTP id 870786 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:35:38 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.16.19981119113642.3917f33a@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu> X-Sender: hlaufman@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (16) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:36:42 -0500 To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com From: "Harrington B. Laufman" Subject: Re: The Reply To issue. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I appreciate the well reasoned arguments for setting Reply To: to be the message sender. Mail loops are the horror I've been through more than once with Reply To: set to the list. Someone finds a nifty little but brain-dead "I'm on vacation" doodad for their mail client and your list is history. Talk about angry list subscribers who have no quota left, or just used 25 minutes of connect time to download a few megabytes of the transcript of a machine endlessly notifying itself that its owner is on vacation. I've seen lists die because of this. To my eyes the debate centers on "Do we twist applications to accommodate the user with the lowest skill?" I think that is a very bad precedent. The simple truth is that to get the benefits of full functionality of any tool, effort and practice is required. In other areas of our lives we do not have the expectation that one can simply buy a product and use it masterfully. Internet tools are no different. If I buy a guitar and can't play it, its not the guitar's fault. If I buy an e-mail client and can't work it, its not the e-mail client's fault. This is the same argument that would have all Internet content suitable for 8 year olds. Regards, Harrington -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Laufman Manager, Computer Operations OSU College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences E-Mail: laufman.1@osu.edu 101 Vivian Hall Voice: 614-292-6554 Columbus, Ohio 43210 FAX : 614-688-4009 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 15:15:27 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02757; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02747 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:51:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA04099 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id HAA05643; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:46:16 -0700 (MST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: munging Reply-To Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:46:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01be13cb$61b87540$037b7b0a@patroon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <199811190900.BAA27895@honor.greatcircle.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Whether to send replies to the individual sender (RTS) or to the whole list (RTL) by default is indeed a matter of preference, and to some extent the kind of list you're running. Apparently someone immortalized his or her personal prejudices/rants on the matter in a Web article, but it shouldn't be taken as any kind of gospel. I have lists that run each way. If the primary purpose of your list is for people to make announcements, with member replies or actual "discussions" relatively rare, then Reply-to-sender is the appropriate choice. Examples would be a list set up for comet discoveries, or a poetry series. RTS lists tend to have a high original-content ratio, at the expense of free-flowing give-and-take. On the other hand, if your list is a full-fledged "discussion forum" where the intent is that people hold public multi-way conversations on topics of interest, then you want Reply-to-list by default. Yes, there's a risk of people inadvertently sending private replies into the public list (and haven't we all done it at least once!), but people tend to forget the matching risk on the RTS side: that potentially fruitful discussions will never happen because someone with a great point to make inadvertently sends it PRIVATELY to just one member, leaving the rest of the list in the dark. I should also mention that on many of my lists, a majority of members receive Digests and reply to them when posting. That digest Reply-to has to go somewhere, and it ain't going to be one randomly selected sub-message author. It would be really wonderful if standards could be agreed on for list envelopes and the email user interface so that every reader had a clear and easy choice (to reply to the sender or the whole list) on every message (in or out of a Digest), but we ain't there yet, so as list managers we have the responsibility to choose the algorithm that works best for each of our lists -- and not to take any guff from people who try to bluff us into thinking that one or the other is "illegal" or "wrong." From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 15:30:12 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA05580; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA05573 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics (isp43.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.26.43]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA25920 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:22:37 +1100 Message-Id: <199811222222.JAA25920@mail.dynamite.com.au> From: "John Evershed" To: "List Managers" Subject: Re: Uniting the Centralist and the Federalists Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:30:15 +1100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On Mon, Nov 23, 1998, Darren Wyn Rees replied: > > > Q: Why aren't these new "List-xxx:"headers being implemented > > and used much? > > because most ppl never read the headers of mail > I guess that IS the reason (certainly most people do not know how to even look at the headers, let alone understand them!). BUT if the headers ARE supplied, then: (a) Help desk people can figure out how to help someone who can't unsubscribe from some list; (b) Programs can be written to perform list handling (smart mail clients - "press this button to unsubscribe") (c) Smart list users won't need to keep the initial "welcome" message from the list to ensure that they know how to unsubscribe or whatever. Q: Does anyone know which MLM software supports these headers (or alternatively definitely doesn't support them yet)? John Evershed From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 15:41:02 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA03171; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA03145 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA16396 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from gillette ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id HAA04913; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 07:25:30 -0700 (MST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: unity (was reply-to munging) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:25:37 -0500 Message-ID: <000801be155a$cf208f10$092f2ba0@gillette> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <199811210900.BAA10597@honor.greatcircle.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0518.4 Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Example - unsubscribing (ie signing off, ie leaving): > to quote some examples from RFC 2369 (the path to Unity).. > > List-Unsubscribe: > > List-Unsubscribe: (Use this command to get off the list) > > > List-Unsubscribe: > > If every list used something like one of these examples, all > the various permutations of list behaviours could be tolerated. > Users could get off lists and eventually mail clients would > be able to do it for them. There are two problems with this apparently clever idea. Problem #1 is that the forms listed above all rely on the From: or envelope origin address remaining invariant, both over time and between browsers and mail agents. But as list managers we know that (a) systems departments and ISP's are forever changing the way origin addresses look, from jsmith234@company.com to John_Smith@Mailserver.company.com to ... etc; and that when someone configures the latest greatest WebExplorerScape 9.87, they are lucky to enter an email address at all, let alone match what the old mailer client had. Problem #2 is that if you attempt to solve Problem #1 by introducing the actual address to be unsubbed into the mailto argument string, the user will have to know how to CDATA encode it with %xx hex characters, which is way too much rocket science to expect from mortals. Plus you then have to go through either moderator confirm or user confirm to guard against malicious or inadvertent unsubbing of an unsuspecting member. Of course you could just provide an exact mailto URL at the time of subscription that will suffice to unsubscribe, but once you've done that you have made one of the specific interface choices that "unity" was supposed to transcend; and at that point it might as well be any CGI with an arbitrary cookie number argument, rather than a mailto per se. In fact it would be better to do so, since you can sign or check-digit the cookie and avoid the confirm step. | Nope. I quote: "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion | grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler | approaches one." The problem with Godwin's Law is that the probability of mentioning pomegranates, the '68 Jets, or sea foam also approaches one as an online discussion grows longer. Mike had an interesting observation, but its metamorphosis into one more stick to beat people over the head with is total Net-think. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 18:26:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA08099; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA08090 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA25799 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11527 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:22:39 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:22:38 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: The Reply To issue (loops) In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.16.19981119113642.3917f33a@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Harrington B. Laufman wrote: > Mail loops are the horror I've been through more than once with > Reply To: set to the list. Someone finds a nifty little but > brain-dead "I'm on vacation" doodad for their mail client and your > list is history.... Loop trapping is a fairly basic feature for decent list server programs. There may be some server programs out there which will allow loops. I hope these a few and far between. If your software can't cope with a broken vacation responder, you probably shouldn't use REPLY-TO-LIST configuration. Murphy's Law would indicate that any server software which can't deal with loops also can't be configured for REPLY-TO-AUTHOR. ;-) - murr - From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 22:56:32 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA10455; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA10448 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (dattier@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id AAA07291 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:48:16 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id AAA15714 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:48:15 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811230648.AAA15714@Jupiter.mcs.net> Subject: munging options, RFC2369, joys of homebrew To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:48:15 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk When I wrote about munging, T> Why not leave it up to the user, singular? Bill Houle asked, H> Curious for a list-manager opinion: what if Reply-To were a per-user H> attribute on each list? That is, if the list-owner could set a H> default preference for the list, but each individual could alter H> according to taste? Since my list routines are entirely homebrew, I had no problem setting it up. H> ... would you as list manager not like your global list setting to be H> overridden, or is it a good thing? It doesn't bother me for a user to select RTL instead of RTS, but if it did, I wouldn't offer the choice. It seems logical to me that in any case where the listowner wants all subscribers to have it the same way, whether out of a decision that the default is the right way for that list or of a philosophy that the default is the right way for all lists, then the listowner should be able to turn off the option. On the only remaining list that I run, the default is RTS; it is difficult to tell how many people prefer it and how many stick with it out of lassitude. Only one subscriber is in RTL mode; there were three, but I kicked one off for the content of his submissions, and another I moved to RTS (and told him why) when he sent the list an off-topic personal message intended for another subscriber. A month later he unsubbed without offering a reason, so I do not know whether my changing his mode had anything to do with it. Nobody has switched to RTL in at least the last two years, and it has been more than two years since the last time the remaining RTL-mode subscriber posted. John Evershed asked, E> Does anyone know which MLM software supports these headers (or E> alternatively definitely doesn't support them yet)? Again, the joys of homebrew routines: my list supports them, and surely some MLM packages have hooks where a listowner or where the system list admini- strator can slip in a routine to add them. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 22 23:16:46 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA10455; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA10448 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (dattier@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id AAA07291 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:48:16 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id AAA15714 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:48:15 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199811230648.AAA15714@Jupiter.mcs.net> Subject: munging options, RFC2369, joys of homebrew To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:48:15 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk When I wrote about munging, T> Why not leave it up to the user, singular? Bill Houle asked, H> Curious for a list-manager opinion: what if Reply-To were a per-user H> attribute on each list? That is, if the list-owner could set a H> default preference for the list, but each individual could alter H> according to taste? Since my list routines are entirely homebrew, I had no problem setting it up. H> ... would you as list manager not like your global list setting to be H> overridden, or is it a good thing? It doesn't bother me for a user to select RTL instead of RTS, but if it did, I wouldn't offer the choice. It seems logical to me that in any case where the listowner wants all subscribers to have it the same way, whether out of a decision that the default is the right way for that list or of a philosophy that the default is the right way for all lists, then the listowner should be able to turn off the option. On the only remaining list that I run, the default is RTS; it is difficult to tell how many people prefer it and how many stick with it out of lassitude. Only one subscriber is in RTL mode; there were three, but I kicked one off for the content of his submissions, and another I moved to RTS (and told him why) when he sent the list an off-topic personal message intended for another subscriber. A month later he unsubbed without offering a reason, so I do not know whether my changing his mode had anything to do with it. Nobody has switched to RTL in at least the last two years, and it has been more than two years since the last time the remaining RTL-mode subscriber posted. John Evershed asked, E> Does anyone know which MLM software supports these headers (or E> alternatively definitely doesn't support them yet)? Again, the joys of homebrew routines: my list supports them, and surely some MLM packages have hooks where a listowner or where the system list admini- strator can slip in a routine to add them. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 23 06:43:40 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA08273; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:29:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from prometheus.quickie.net (prometheus.quickie.net [151.197.81.230]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA08266 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rabbi@localhost) by prometheus.quickie.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA04143; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:45:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:44:57 -0500 (EST) From: "L. H. Sassaman" To: Greg Woods cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Reply-To Munging In-Reply-To: <199811192317.QAA23033@ncar.ucar.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Greg Woods wrote: > > Hitler > > first got into political office on a fair vote in a free election. > > OK, that's it. Time to invoke Godwin's Law: the usefulness of a debate > is ended as soon as someone drags Hitler and the Nazis into it. > Amazing how accurate that is; nothing against the person who actually > is the one to do this, but by the time Hitler gets mentioned, the same > points have usually been made ad nauseum on both sides and people are > starting to resort to "arguing by extreme example". Attempting to > associate one's opponent with Hitler, even very indirectly, seems to be > a very common thing to happen at this point. > > --Greg > You're a tad late there, Greg, we've already had a debate over "what is Godwin's law" and the proper instances in which it should be invoked. :^) But I'm glad to see you know what it is, though. L. Sassaman System Administrator | "Can't shake the Devil's hand Technology Consultant | and say you're only kidding..." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --They Might Be Giants From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 23 12:18:33 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA12877; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [199.74.151.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA12870 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:55:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA27584 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:12:22 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981123151218.037c3210@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:12:18 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: demime Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm in the process of working on a package to strip and/or render mime/attachments/etc that are sent to mailing lists. It is definitely a work in progress and I'm still discovering at least a bug every day. None the less, I have it front-ending all of the majordomo lists I run at scifi.squawk.com and I also have it filtering incoming postings (to me) on at least one list I follow. But, frankly, most of my users are trained not to send attachments, since I've been filtering for content types other than text/plain for some time. If you want to help test this, you are welcome to - hell, I'd appreciate the input and ideas. Currently I'm running it on Linux, front-ending majordomo managed lists. It also requires that you install libwww-perl to render html. It will remove non-recognized attachments (it only recognizes text, and a very few variants on message), in-line uuencoded stuff in text/plain sections as is put in by some microsoft stuff, and (as sort of a side benefit) advertising .sigs from hotmail, yahoo and juno. It will render text/enriched (simply) or text/html (using libwww-perl). If you are interested in helping me *test* this puppy, please feel free to check it out at http://scifi.squawk.com/demime.html and sign up for the demime-l mailing list at scifi.squawk.com (mail to demime-l-request, of course - but you guys might *know* that). And I'm interested in various interpretations of "the right thing to do", given my assumption that the right thing to do is not to put mime and attachments on mailing lists (especially since my version of Majordomo can only do an RFC1152(?) digest, which does not work real well with alternative encodings of content and non-text sections. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 23 12:29:15 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA13081; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA13064 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/best.sh) id MAA18809; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:18:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:18:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811232018.MAA18809@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: <3.0.2.16.19981119113642.3917f33a@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu> (hlaufman@postoffice.ag.ohio-state.edu) Subject: Re: The Reply To and related issues Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:36:42 -0500 From: "Harrington B. Laufman" To my eyes the debate centers on "Do we twist applications to accommodate the user with the lowest skill?" I think that is a very bad precedent. The simple truth is that to get the benefits of full functionality of any tool, effort and practice is required. In other areas of our lives we do not have the expectation that one can simply buy a product and use it masterfully. Internet tools are no different. If I buy a guitar and can't play it, its not the guitar's fault. If I buy an e-mail client and can't work it, its not the e-mail client's fault. I agree with you and think this is an excellent way to look at it. But I don't think the fault is entirely with the users. The design of the mailer software is also to blame. Like many of you, I use a UNIX-based mailer. It does everything it's supposed to do. But then along come all these new graphical-based mailers and they (often) stop doing the basics well. Worse still, they start doing other things that the UNIX-based mailers can't. So we have ended up with a climate where the users of the "newer" mailers don't see why they need those "old" features, like reply-to, and get pissed off if you suggest that them converting messages to MIME and/or HTML is a bad thing. "Get a real mailer," they tell me. In many cases, the users are perfectly willing to change to plain text and other reasonable mailer behavior, but they don't know how. AOL's mailer (and if you're on AOL you have to use it) seems to alternate between text and MIME and there is no obvious way to set it. I've poked around in that software and can't figure it out. Someone I asked to send me text-only actually contacted AOL tech support and was told that my mail server (!) was obviously broken and I needed to upgrade it. They also said there was no way to turn MIME off (nor should there be). My expereince with AOL tech support is that 75% of them are brain dead (it took me several calls to figure out how I could access AOL from my existing PPP connection...I have to use it for some clients of mine...it took that long before someone understood the words "telnet" or "PPP" or "not via direct dialup"). (If anyone knows how to work the AOL mailer to turn off MIME, please tell me!) Other mailers are even worse. I *still* can't figure out how to turn off MIME in the compuserv mailer, despite detailed instructions from members of this group. I might be able to do it if I saw the mailer but I only passed the instructions on to a friend with the problem. He was never able to fix it. As other people have mentioned, another program with the "newer" mailers is that they screw up the reply-to line and make it things like "cnorman@best.com"@best.com. At least in those cases I can figure it out. Many times I get people asking me important questions about their health and no usable return address. I just have to wait for them to write again. I do want to note that some of the graphically-based mailers work fine. As far as I know, Eudora and Pegasus do not have these problems. The worst offenders are also the most popular: AOL, Compuserv, anything by Microsoft, and, to a lessor extent, Netscape. So something is wrong, yes, but it's not only with the large number of users who don't know what they're doing but think they do. At least with UNIX mailers, it looks about as hard as it is (which is not very hard but appropriately intimidating to new users). Back in the early 1990's, people with accounts at the university actually took instruction in using the computer (informal hour-long sessions run by whoever among us had the time). Or they read a instruction booklet. Now the programs look easier than they are and too many people get into trouble. My two cents. Cyndi (who is against reply-to munging in nearly all cases) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com _________________________ Owner of the Immune Lists http://www.best.com/~immune From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 27 08:03:19 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA17056; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 07:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberq.quality.org (cyberq.quality.org [199.181.80.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA17049 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 07:48:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (help@localhost) by cyberq.quality.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA02422 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:05:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:05:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)" To: List Managers List Subject: re: mailing lists to HTML Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Some weeks ago, there was a discussion about software that would convert mailing list postings to HTML. Naturally, I've misplaced or lost those postings. Can you repost? Thanks. Bill ============================================================================= Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org - List Moderator, "TQM in Manufacturing and Service Industries" List Address: QUALITY@pucc.princeton.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For More Information: http://www.quality.org/lists/qual-list.html ============================================================================= From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 28 09:28:04 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA05071; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.252.88.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA05056 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 09:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.252.88.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA30683; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:32:01 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199811200544.VAA06618@intelpo.sandiegoca.ncr.com> References: <199811192218.QAA16148@Mars.mcs.net> from "David W. Tamkin" at Nov 19, 98 04:18:52 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:22:09 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: User Control (was Re: Reply-To Munging) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 0:44 -0500 11/20/98, Bill Houle sent everyone: >David W. Tamkin said: >> >> Vince Sabio wrote, still not directing replies where he says he wants them, >> | Rather than decry one or the other, why not just leave it up to the users? >> Why not leave it up to the user, singular? > >Curious for a list-manager opinion: what if Reply-To were a per-user >attribute on each list? That is, if the list-owner could set a >default preference for the list, but each individual could alter >according to taste? (This was discussed briefly for Mj2 functionality.) > >Ignoring the complexity required to implement, would you as list >manager not like your global list setting to be overridden, or is >it a good thing? IMO, it'd be a godsend. Note, BTW, that very few users have the capability of manually inserting a customized Reply-To on every message -- and many do not even have the capability of inserting any Reply-To line at all. Thus, the only practical way to "leave it up to the user, singular" would be to implement it at the list server. Owner default, subscriber customizable. A very nice idea. (Sorry for the late reply on this post, but I took an early Thanksgiving holiday. :-) From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 28 11:27:52 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06439; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA06428 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:45:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.cru.fr (home.cru.fr [195.220.94.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA15324 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.cru.fr (IDENT:aumont@localhost.cru.fr [127.0.0.1]) by home.cru.fr (8.9.1a/jtpda-5.2) with ESMTP id NAA07909 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:28:00 +0100 Message-Id: <199811271228.NAA07909@home.cru.fr> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: How academic networks organise lists ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:27:59 +0100 From: Aumont - Comite Reseaux des Universites Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi lists managers, My question is about the organisation of mailling list services in academic networks. Mailbase is not only a product, it is also a famous organisation from UK academic network for mailling lists. (http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/) As an input for french academic services organisation, I would be pleased to receive some other URL about central or large mailling list services for education and higher education community. Regards Serge Aumont ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Serge Aumont CRU campus Beaulieu Tel : 02 99 84 71 47 35042 Rennes Cedex fax : 02 99 84 71 11 From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 28 11:43:02 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06162; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA06151 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:41:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from prometheus.quickie.net (prometheus.quickie.net [151.197.81.230]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA09789 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rabbi@localhost) by prometheus.quickie.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10871 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:41:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:41:18 -0500 (EST) From: "L. H. Sassaman" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Odd majordomo annoyance Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hmm, here's something that's never happened to me before... I just set up a new mailing list, and whenever I try to send majordomo a subscribe command, it tells me that the list does not exist. However, if I directly edit the list file, and add my email address to it, I can send and receive mail. When I issue a "lists" command, it shows up there. (info, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. all tell me that there is no such list.) Any clues would be greatly appreciated. L. Sassaman System Administrator | "Can't shake the Devil's hand Technology Consultant | and say you're only kidding..." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --They Might Be Giants -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNlmQNj2K8bIJrApqEQLuiACfdfK/sdUPpX5ADOpcY6UwrzBNh9AAoPMB z4Wx1Dwajg03t8s46iNAWE0k =El70 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 28 11:57:59 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06084; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA06074 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:40:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA09403 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:17:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18162 ; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:35:41 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199811222222.JAA25920@mail.dynamite.com.au> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 20:31:45 -0800 To: "John Evershed" , "List Managers" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Uniting the Centralist and the Federalists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:30 AM +1100 11/23/98, John Evershed wrote: > BUT if the headers ARE supplied, then: > > (a) Help desk people can figure out how to help someone > who can't unsubscribe from some list; A third of your subscribers are from AOL. Half or more from major ISPs like AOL, earthlink, netcom, whatever. guess how useful (and timely) those help desk people will be.... > (b) Programs can be written to perform list handling > (smart mail clients - "press this button to unsubscribe") Again, if a third of your subscribers are from AOL, how quickly will AOL adopt this? I don't *care* if Pine does. the folks using Pine are least likely to NEED it in the first place. Until the major software developers support it (and the 500 pound gorillas are AOL, Netscape and Microsoft. Nobody else matters) it doesn't matter. And then we have to wait for all of their users to upgrade. and find the new features. and bother using them. and... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 30 08:57:58 1998 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA05702; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:12:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from devo.impressive.net (dialup-2229.lcs.mit.edu [18.23.2.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA05695 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:12:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gerald@localhost) by devo.impressive.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02949 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 05:30:28 -0500 Message-ID: <19981130053027.C2794@impressive.net> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 05:30:27 -0500 From: Gerald Oskoboiny To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: switching subscriber file formats References: <199811192121.NAA15662@goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <199811192121.NAA15662@goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net>; from Sam Brooks on Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 01:21:29PM -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 01:21:29PM -0800, Sam Brooks wrote: > Hi, > > Question for the group. I'm being given a list of email addresses, > approx 7000 in all. Need to get them into my members file. > I'm told the addresses are 'comma separated' One way is: cat oldfile | tr , '\012' | sed 's/^ *//' > newfile -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/