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

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:32:59PM +1100, paul van den bergen wrote:
> > munging reply-to is NOT a solution to anything.  it breaks a lot
> > more than it allegedly "fixes".
> >
> > - munging reply-to destroys any reply-to header that the original
> > author may have set.
> 
> 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?

so that it is possible to send them a private reply.  sometimes, sending
a private rather than public reply is the appropriate thing to do (no
doubt, some would say that this message should have been sent privately)


the Reply-To header exists so that a sender can specify a return address
when they know that the address inserted by their mail client or mail
server is (perhaps temporarily - see below) broken, or when they want
replies to go to, e.g., their home address rather than their work
address or to their hotmail/yahoo address because they know they're
going on holiday and will only have intermittent email access via
internat cafes.

if a person sets a reply-to header and then the list overwrites it, it
is impossible to send a private reply to the original author - the
original Reply-To address is gone, discarded, and can not be recovered.  

so, important and useful functionality has been lost with nothing useful
gained.  Reply-To munging doesn't make it possible to do anything that
wasn't already possible, it makes one thing slightly easier at the price
of making other things harder and one thing impossible.   that is a poor
trade.

OTOH, if the list doesn't munge the Reply-To header, then it is possible
for any list recipient to choose where to send any replies, e.g.
publicly to the list or privately to the original author.




btw, wireless.org.au is a good example of this.  one of the subscribers
here has an @mail.wireless.org.au address.  unfortunately, this is (or
was a few days ago) broken because the wireless.org.au server is
refusing mail for @mail.wireless.org.au.   i suggested that he add a
Reply-To header to his outgoing mail "Reply-To: username at wireless.org.au".  

he did this, and it fixed the problem...or at least provided a temporary
workaround until the mailserver could be fixed properly.    i don't know
if that's been done yet.  

this is a perfect example of what the Reply-To header is for.

HOWEVER, if the MW list munged the Reply-To header, it would be
impossible to send a private reply to him.




>[...]
> so, is there a better solution that allows reply-to list but diverts
> holiday replies, etc. (filter?) probably not.  I guess it depends how
> trainable the list members are...

there is no solution (*including* munging Reply-To) which is going to
fix those stupid "out-of-office autoreply" messages.  they are broken, a
classic example of mail software written by people who don't have the
faintest clue about how internet mail works.

the only (partial) solution is to unsub the subscribers who cause a
problem with autoreply tools.

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