mail to individuals

[Odd]

Any reason you sent this to me offlist instead of here? The discussion
is onlist, so I'll continue it here.

Samuel Thurston, III wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:
>> The email client isn't broken. It simply lacks a function that wouldn't
>> be needed if lists are set up in a way that makes the most sense.
>>
> But it is broken according to the standards docs.

So you keep saying. And yet, where is it defined as a STANDARD?

>> Not all RFCs are standards. Btw, could you point me to the RFC
>> concerning this topic?
>>
> 
> RFC 2822 is the standard in question. it's an IETF draft from 2001.
> it obseletes RFC 822 from 1982, and clearly states that the reply-to
> field should indicate the mailbox of the AUTHOR of the document.
> Since the mailing list processor isn't the author...

A draft you say? How is a draft a standard?

> RFC 2369 specifies the existence of the list-post: header, which is to
> be the means of addressing the list.  That's one's from 1998.  here's
> the section on list-post
> 
> 3.4. List-Post
> 
>    The List-Post field describes the method for posting to the list.
>    This is typically the address of the list, but MAY be a moderator, or
>    potentially some other form of submission. For the special case of a
>    list that does not allow posting (e.g., an announcements list), the
>    List-Post field may contain the special value "NO".
> 
>    Examples:
> 
>      List-Post: <mailto:list at host.com>
>      List-Post: <mailto:moderator at host.com> (Postings are Moderated)
>      List-Post: <mailto:moderator at host.com?subject=list%20posting>
>      List-Post: NO (posting not allowed on this list)

And this has _what_ to do with the topic at hand? I would like
you to point out, since you've said it so many times now, _where_
exactly this reply-to policy is defined as a STANDARD. Can you
do that, please?

>>> I agree the situation sucks.  I repeat: direct your complaint to the
>>> vendor of your  non-RFC compliant email client.
>> I have a reply to list button, thank you very much. Even so, I
>> disagree with this practise anyway, so you wouldn't find me
>> complaining to any mail client vendor.
> 
> It's your right to disagree.  Maybe you don't like the 9 button on
> your phone.

That's the best you can come up with? Sad really. Not having a 9
button would obviously destroy the ability to use that phone in
many cases. The matter we're discussing has no destructive
consequences at all, either way it's done.

>>> Lets try to get more
>>> things working the right way instead of breaking more things to
>>> accommodate other broken things... like they do in the windows world.
>> This is a small matter. I don't even see why there's a RFC about it,
>> when common sense is all you need to see what's the right way to
>> do it.
> 
> interesting that rather than counter the valid argument that we
> shouldn't break one end of the equation to match the other broken end,

Because I've already said multiple times that it's about doing
it the right way, using common sense. Your way is illogical,
even if there's an RFC about it that you can't even say is a
standard.

> your answer is it's a "small matter"

It's just like we should have a RFC for what text color one
should use for text in mail. Just use your head. Don't use
white on white. Goes without saying.

> As I already demonstrated, the use-case is an interpretation of the
> RFC's that define how email should work in totality...

So it needs to be interpreted in your view? Why would a standard
need to be interpreted? There are two options. One is right. This
should be an open and shut case, if you are correct.

> it's not about
> this one particular issue, but about maintaining consistent behavior
> across the entirety of email.

If so, you have already lost since almost all lists do it counter
to what you want.

> For those of us who've been posting to
> lists since the late 80's and early 90's, this recent trend of
> screwing up the headers is a real pain.

No it isn't. I've used mailing list since the late 80s myself. So i'm
clearly not a part of those you imagine support your view. And
I imagine there are many other old-timers who agree with me,
not you.

-- 
Odd