Re: Reply To

[Leslie Mikesell <les @ Mcs . Net>]

> If the moderator becomes the originator then his mailbox belongs in the
> - From header, and what was originally there should be moved to the
> Resent-From (I think) header.  Regardless, *MAJORDOMO* is not the
> originator, it is the agent responsible for final submission of the message
> to the network.

You seem to miss the distinction that while majordomo is an agent, the
list is a separate entity.  We can mince words about whether majordomo
is an agent for the list or the author but for this message it doesn't
matter.  As the author, I want the submission agent to set the reply-to:
back to the list address for me.  If majordomo is submitting for me,
then that's the right thing for it to do.  If the list exists as a
discussion group and the list owner wants normal replies to be directed
to the list and majordomo is an agent for the list, then setting the
reply-to: is the right thing to do. 

> Who Majordomo is accting for does not change the fact that it is acting for
> someone.  It clearly is not the originator of any list traffic and
> therefore should not be doing anything with originator headers.

Why not?  Are you saying that authors have to type their headers by
hand rather than letting the submission agents do it for them?

> LM> You wouldn't have sent something to me were it not for the list so why
> LM> shouldn't my reply be guided back the same way?  However, this is silly
> LM> semantics -
> 
> So RFC822 is nothing more than silly semantics?

RFC822 is rather clear on this point in text that has already been
quoted here.  The Reply-To: header was invented in part for this
specific case:
     4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
	[...]
        A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their
        own.

I don't see any requirement there that the author has to hand-type
this header himself instead of letting the submission software do
it for him.  What is the purpose of mailing list software if not
to manage these details for us?  That's the silly semantics issue.
If majordomo isn't an extension of 'my' user agent, why not, and
why do you think I am sending through it? 

> LM> the real issue is where a 'normal' reply should go and I believe this
> LM> depends on the nature of the list and the intent of it's manager.
> 
> No, a 'normal' reply goes to wherever the composer of that reply wishes.
> Only he knows whether or not the message he is composing is relevant to the
> list, and only he is in a position to do anything about where that message
> is addressed.

Of course the responding person has the choice to override the
suggested reply address, but he should only have to do so in cases
where the response is not what was expected.

On all the messages I compose and submit to a list, I wish to have
a Reply-To: inserted for me to direct messages back to the list.
It is entirely irrelevant to me where this happens.  My user agent
isn't a specialized list processing agent so it doesn't handle this
easily.  If majordomo is my submission agent, then that's where it
should happen.  If it isn't submitting on my behalf then it should
do what the list owner wants instead of what I want.

Here are some sample headers from lists where I have never seen a
single complaint about the way the list works.   Are all these
people inserting the Reply-To: the hard way?

  ------
   Received: (from majordom@localhost)
             by listserv2.direct.net (8.8.5/8.8.4)
   	  id OAA25746 for postodbc-users-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:45:28 -0700
   Message-Id: <199706021446.QAA22279@butterfly.hgf.de>
   Comments: Authenticated sender is <volkerr@butterfly>
   From: "Volker Richert" <volker@sektor.de>
   Organization: Sektor Online Services
   To: postodbc-users@listserv.direct.net
   Subject: Re: Problem PostODBC 0.21 and Access 7.0
   In-reply-to: <336e9c8f.246101716@pgp.netwave.de>
   Sender: owner-postodbc-users@listserv.direct.net
   Precedence: bulk
   Reply-To: postodbc-users@listserv.direct.net
  ------
   From owner-modperl@LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET Mon Jun  2 11:12:16 1997
   Message-ID:  <199706021545.QAA32387@techine.webdev.co.uk>
   Date:         Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:53:58 +0100
   Reply-To: Discussion about the Apache ModPerl Module
                 <MODPERL@LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET>
   Sender: Discussion about the Apache ModPerl Module
                 <MODPERL@LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET>
   From: Ben Middleton <ben@MIDDLETON.CO.UK>
   Subject:      Out of memory!
   To: MODPERL@LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET
  -------

Les Mikesell
  les@mcs.com