[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging |
Date: |
27 Aug 2003 14:16:35 +0900 |
Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:
> > However, the failure mode here is benign -- at worst, duplicate
> > copies get sent (if someone follows up to a copy of the message
> > added by the MLM for a non-subscribed mailing list, but the
> > recipient headers also included a subscribed mailing list).
>
> It's not benign: if the recipient is on one list of two, and the sender
> of the reply is one the other, and finally, the list the recipient is on
> doesn't allow un-subscribed posters.. the recipient won't get the mail
> they otherwise would have.
I can't see how that would happen except in the case where the original
sender adds M-F-T himself; since I used the weasel-word `intelligently'
I'll just modify my previous rule, to be more so: :-)
Basically M-F-T should omit the sender if he's on _any_ of the mailing
lists to which the message was sent, as long they're `public' lists.
In the case where the MLMs add the M-F-T header, it all seems to work:
Assume both MLMs add M-F-T accordingly, and the original message (from
`the recipient', subscribed to list1) says:
From: person1
To: list1, list2
Then the `sender of the reply' above (subscribed to list2) will get this:
From: person1
To: list1, list2
M-F-T: list1, list2, person1
Because he received it through list2, which sees that person1 isn't
subscribed when adding the M-F-T header. Of course if he then
replies, his message will be rejected by list1 -- but there's
nothing you can do about that in any case, and person1 will still
get a copy.
Of course if the MLMs are adding the header, and the receiver does
duplicate-removal, you run into the issue of `which copy of the headers
did I receive' -- but even if you receive a copy not sent through a
list, the failure mode seems benign in that you simply don't get a
M-F-T header, so any followup you send will default to being over-inclusive.
-Miles
--
Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Mark A. Flacy, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Miles Bader, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Robert Collins, 2003/08/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging,
Miles Bader <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Specifying protocols [was: the dangers of no reply-to munging], Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Federico Di Gregorio, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, MJ Ray, 2003/08/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] something _interesting_ for (Re: ... no reply-to munging ...), Tom Lord, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/22