On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:30 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
> But, with regard to the original problem, it's not so easy to post to
> just THIS list.
this server, unfortunately, runs on software that doesn't support
RFC2369.
<http://www.zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC2369/Output/chapter3.html>
the list-post header is what you want, and part of that RFC. Mailman
supports these headers, although we get occasional screams from folks
who are more interested in their way than the right way. but the idea
behind 2369 was to build in standardized headers for just what you want
-- and to make it easier for the folks writing mail clients to build
automated ways of accessing and using that information. Of course, the
mail client writers have little incentive to support that if people
don't build the headers into the lists...
> Yes. I am familiar with all the verbiage about munging Reply To:
> headers by list software, but if there is no Reply To: in the
> submission does it not make sense for the list software to add one
> pointing to the list itself?
it depends. But that's the real reason why we need to get support for
2369 into servers and mail clients. Because reply-to doesn't solve the
problem, even though people keep using it to try to: because the real
solution isn't forcing replies, and because clients see reply as a
binary operation (reply/reply-all). in reality, with lists it's a
tri-state operation (reply/reply-list/reply-all), and that's what
List-post is supposed to allow to happen.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems
chuq@apple.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
