[MLB-WIRELESS] Fw: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) ( anyone else get this? )

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:13:56PM +1100, Toliman wrote:
> At 01:56 PM 14/01/2003, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:06:25PM +1100, Toliman wrote:
> >> but sending 40 messages in an hour, and having to modify the email
> >> address for every single reply is just fucking tedious.
> >
> >so use a decent fucking mail client.  simple.  problem solved.  in fact,
> >there ISN'T a problem - the "problem" only exists for those who refuse
> >to use a decent mail client.
> 
> ok, name a "decent" fucking email client.

mutt is one of many.

> preferably one that has been developed and/or updated this century, 

yes

> has multiple platform support, 

yes

> and has an easy-to-use interface, 

yes

> and is RFC standards compliant, 

yes.

mutt qualifies on all your criteria.



if you don't like mutt, you could try Evolution (*nix only), or Mozilla
(runs on pretty nearly everything) or one of several others.



> >this is the prime example of lame rebuttals that conveniently ignore
> >crucial points because they have no answer to them.
> 
> what crucial points? 

specifically (and pay attention here, i've mentioned it 3 or 4 times
already today and don't have much patience left for slow learners) the
fact that it overwrites any existing Reply-To header.



> [...i didn't bother reading it all but i don't like it....]
>
> i.e. it's a very long RANT.

it's not that long, only a page or two....and it also happens to be
right.

chip rosenthal has been in the internet email game for a very long time.
longer than me, and i've been in it for over a decade.  he's certainly
someone whose opinion i respect when it comes to mail issues (even
though i don't always agree with him).



> >> >>I don't understand why this is bad... it is an email list. what
> >> >>reason would someone want to preserve the reply-to from a list?
> >>
> >> i can imagine, it's to include the humourous and often funny crap that
> >> people modify and include as their reply to addresses such as this
> >> lovely unsolicited email i got from another mailing list:
> >
> >no, to use a current example, it's to preserve useful address like:
> >
> >Reply-To: bchild at wireless.org.au
> 
> that's not a valid point ... validating your theory by providing a kludge 
> as proof is fallacious reasoning.

you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

i provided an example of why it is a bad idea to munge Reply-To and you
claim, speciously, that it is a "kludge".

of course it's a fucking kludge. that's precisely what Reply-To is for,
it exists so that a person can kludge around known broken-ness in their
MUA or MTA and provide a valid reply address.



> nobody cares if replies go to a different address than the one they 
> subscribed with. except perhaps the one person who modifies their reply-to 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> header. 
  ^^^^^^^

duh!   i'm glad you're finally starting to see the point.

it doesn't matter to most people because they don't need it.  for those
who do need it, it is essential.


> with your reasoning as to the necessity of the reply-to header, a
> less-than-honest user could subscribe to a list, engineer a false
> email address or falsify their email address information, redirect
> their replies to another person, who is unsubscribed, banned, or
> sending unsolicited messages and derogatory/illegal postings.

a less than honest user could do all manner of annoying things, with or
without a Reply-To header.  email addresses are unverified and
unauthenticated.  deal with it.


> I'd prefer to belong to a list where only subscribed users send and
> receive the emails sent to the list. With a custom reply-to header,
> that is not possible. 

yes, it is(*).  it as possible without Reply-To munging as it is with.  

just so you don't miss the point, reply-to munging is basically
irrelevant to that capability.  Reply-To does not affect the Sender,
From_, or From: address of any replies, nor does it affect the
recipients of a mailing list.  it has no bearing on your "prime reason"
at all.


you must be grasping at straws if you have to invent "problems" which
are somehow magically solved by Reply-To munging.



(*) as long as you understand that anyone, anywhere can forge any sender
address they like (including the addresses of list subscribers).  and
that any list subscriber has the ability to create a public archive
and/or automatically forward messages to non-subscribers.  in other
words, short of using a real encrypted authentication mechanism, it's
not really possible to restrict either the senders or the recipients of
a mailing list, it's only possible to achieve the illusion of that.

and, once again, reply-to munging makes no difference whatsoever here.


> That is my "prime reason" for munging, and one that i have seen 

and now that you know that your "prime reason" is no reason at all, will
you give up your ignorant opinions and adopt reason?  somehow, i doubt
it.



> working for lists which do implement reply-to munging, with thousands of 
> subscribed members interchanging posts with a 5 second turnaround, instead 
> of the 3-7 minute turnaround on the M-W list.

MW is slow because it's running on sendmail.  again, nothing to do with
Reply-To munging.

if you're going to attempt misleading distractions or outright lies,
then please at least *TRY* to make them appear vaguely relevant.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message