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

[Craig Sanders]

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.


> >the lame rebuttals to http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >all conveniently ignore one crucial point because they have no answer
> >for it - munging reply-to destroys any reply-to header that the
> >original author may have set.
> 
> my google-fu is stronger
> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml

no it isn't. that's the lame rebuttal i was referring to.

this guy is clueless, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

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


> >i've run many hundreds of mailing lists over the years.  i'm currently
> >responsible for over 250 of them.  the single most common cause of
> >mailing-list loops is the combination of Reply-To header munging and a
> >subscriber on a broken NT mail server.
> 
> uhuh ... have you run one recently? 

yes, i run hundreds of lists at the moment.

what part of "i'm currently responsible for over 250 of them" is
difficult to understand?

> >>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 is fairly common.  generally the people who are in favour of
> >Reply-To munging are those who have no experience running mailing
> >lists and who therefore are unable to think of good reasons.
> 
> those people who rule servers rarely are forced to be democratic or 
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
> analytical about their choices, their inability to appreciate the 

now i know you're clueless.

technology is not a democracy.  things either work or they don't,
voting about it doesn't change that.

it sounds like you're one of those mediocrity-fascists who think that
everyone's opinion is equally valid on every topic, regardless of what
experience or knowledge or skill they might have in the subject being
discussed.

sorry but, e.g., if i'm discussing nuclear physics, i'm going to rate
the opinion of someone who works or researches in the field a lot higher
than the opinion of any joe-blow off the street.

same with mail servers, mail clients, and mailing lists.  the opinions
of those who work with and/or develop the technology every day are worth
more than the opinions of some random user.


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