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

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:55:31AM +1100, Jason Clarke wrote:
> No problemo. If you remember that is. (Thanks for no CC: :)

that's the point of Mail-Followup-To.  i can't guarantee that i'll
remember.  i probably will for the next week or so.  however, if your
MUA inserted the M-F-T header, i wouldn't have to remember....my MUA
would do the right thing automatically.

and frankly, since it's something that you could fix but choose not to,
i'm not going to lose any sleep over the possibility that i'll forget
and accidentally CC you on list mail one day.  like i said, if you don't
care enough to fix your problem, why should i or anyone else care?


> > fortunately, there is a way to automatically specify your preference
> > without expecting everyone else to have to remember.  just set your
> > mail client to add a Mail-Followup-To header when you send messages
> > to a list.  this allows you to specify whether you want follow-ups
> > to go to you, to the list, or to both.
> 
> But then again, you're relying on a 3rd party to honour the Followup
> header,

yes, just as you rely on a 3rd party to reply in a language you
understand or via a standard mail protocol, or to the Reply-To: or To:
or From: or Sender: or whatever address.

it's impossible to cover all the variations.  there's a lot of weird
software (and people) out there on the net.  the only thing to do is to
do the right thing and expect others to do the same...ignore or filter
those who don't.

> and I doubt this will fix the reply-all / CC ickyness.

the Mail-Followup-To header specifically *DOES* fix the
reply-to-all/reply-to-author/rely-to-list "ickyness".  that's what it is
designed to do.


> > if there's a solution (i.e. using a non-broken mail client) to a
> > problem and you choose not to implement that solution then you
> > really have no cause to complain.  you can't expect anyone else to
> > care much about your problem if you don't care enough to bother to
> > fix it.
> 
> Choosing not to implement a non-broken mail client that would result
> in many hours of re-training on personal plus the trouble shooting
> required when things go wrong seems a little more sensible. 

then you have made the choice that putting up with a broken mail client
is less hassle than learning a new one.  your choice has consequences,
both good and bad.  deal with it.

> I've tried other clients (Win32 / *nix) and found that most have
> glaring feature problems (Shared address books is a primary
> requirement) or are just suffering from a bad case of bad gui's.

take a look at Evolution.  linux-only AFAIK.  i personally wouldn't use
it (i can't stand GUI mail clients) but it's the only GUI MUA i've ever
seen that didn't inspire feelings of disgust and loathing.  probably
because it's written by unix geeks who actually understand internet mail
rather than by windoze weenies who don't.


> However, this is going to degenerate into a flame war (I'm guilty of
> it too) before much longer and again, will result in no gain in either
> way. People advocating other mail clients will continue to do so,
> people who don't care will continue not to care, and those who can't
> deal with the whole issue will go postal.

i'm not advocating any particular mail client.  i'm advocating a general
class of mail clients - i.e. non-broken ones.  there are several
available to choose from.  admittedly, not as many as there are broken
mail clients, but still enough to give a reasonable range of choice.

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