headers
Terje Bless | 1 Oct 2000 15:59
X-Face
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

On 30.09.00 at 11:37, Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com> wrote:

>On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:50:20AM +0200, Terje Bless wrote:
>
>>On 29.09.00 at 17:14, Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Not really that useful a feature, because they would only have this
>>>magic label if they were new conforming software, and new conforming
>>>software should not be sending you any e-mail unless you asked for it
>>>(which you certainly would not!)
>>
>>Sez who? I routinely ask for CCs (using MCT, even) for *all* my USENET
>>posts.
>
>I'm sure you do, but what does this have to do with my aside to the author
>of the message I was commenting on?

Well, given the phrasing of your reply, I'm going to assume that I've made
a brainfart. :-)

Your original message in reply to Russ scanned as "Posted-and-Mailed is
pointless because only new conforming software will understand it and new
conforming software also understands Mail-Copies-To (and one would
certainly not use MCT to ask for CCs!)". Thus my reply.

Where did I loose contact with reality? :-)

--

-- 
As a cat owner, I know this for a fact...
Nothing says "I love you" like a decapitated gopher on your front porch.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz | 2 Oct 2000 03:14
Picon
Favicon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00


In <20000929222915.11727.qmail <at> kairos.algonet.se>, on 09/29/2000
   at 10:29 PM, sommar <at> algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) said:

>Only trivialists will look in the header for such information.

Ad hominem alert! Instead of calling those who disagree with you
trivialists, why note explain your reasons for not wanting it in the
headers? You admit that you want him to know that it is a copy, you
have no control over whether he sees the mail copy before or after the
news copy, and the headers seem to be the obvious place to put the
indication.

Now, maybe there is no value to having an agent automatically flag
copies, but you haven't made any such case. So far I haven't seen any
valid arguments against having such a header, although there are
issues as to whether this is the appropriate forum.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 2 Oct 2000 12:50
Picon
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

In <ylg0mi215t.fsf <at> windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>Erland Sommarskog <sommar <at> algonet.se> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:

>>> Accordingly, I'd prefer to avoid any mention at all of what the
>>> software should do if the user explicitly overrode it, since at this
>>> point we're talking about user interface issues that seem rather
>>> outside the scope of the standard.  Instead, I think we should state
>>> that if Mail-Copies-To is set to "never", this indicates that the
>>> poster never wants an e-mailed copy of followups and that a followup
>>> agent MUST NOT send such a copy.  Is there any real need to say
>>> anything more than that, or even mention user overrides at all?

>> MUST NOT? Again, where is the interoperability problem?

>Okay, I'm convinced; SHOULD NOT makes more sense from the IETF language
>perspective.

You can say MUST NOT if you also mention overrides.

Currently, I think the position we are moving to is:

"nobody" -> MUST NOT email unless user explicitly overrides.
Ought to issue warning if user does override (and assuming implementation
can reasonably spot same).

So we have one MUST and one Ought.

We might consider downgrading the MUST to a SHOULD and upgrading the Ought
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 2 Oct 2000 13:05
Picon
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

In <86vgvd9avm.fsf <at> strangepork.interhack.net> Matt Curtin <cmcurtin <at> interhack.net> writes:

>>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Lindsey <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

>  Charles> 6.2.  Posted-And-Mailed

>  Charles>       Posted-And-Mailed-content = "yes" / "no"

>This doesn't belong here.  There needs to be a separate document that
>deals with it.  I have not been pushing this document and the
>companion Message-ID header generation document because there are
>more important issues that should be getting resolved here, namely
>documentation and standardization of current practice.

The only reason I have brought the Posted-And-Mailed header back into play
is that we have agreed to look at Mail-Copies-To, and the one seems to
depend on the other (like MCT specifies when PAM should be used).

>The other part of the reason that this doesn't belong here is because
>it affects how mail works and we can't be specifying recommendations
>or standards for how mail works in a USEFOR document.

No, it specifies how certain emails sent from news posting/followup agents
should be structured. I think that is OK within USEFOR.

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 2 Oct 2000 12:59
Picon
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

In <20000929171423.A30855 <at> main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com> writes:

>On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 05:08:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 
>> It's only useful if it also contains information about where the message
>> was posted.  If it does, and it was also posted to some newsgroup I read,
>> I'll have my mail software automatically delete such messages without
>> showing them to me.

>Not really that useful a feature, because they would only have this
>magic label if they were new conforming software, and new conforming
>software should not be sending you any e-mail unless you asked for it
>(which you certainly would not!)

Eh? But what if the user DID ask for it? Or expressed no preference by not
including MCT at all? Or the user sent it manually regadlesss? In those
cases, Posted-And-Mailed gives a useful clue.

>A better system is to include the "Newsgroups" header in the mail, which
>not only reveals it is a copy of a USENET message, but also from which
>groups.   And of course an in-reply-to header to boot.

Yes, that is a useful thing to do AS WELL.

Will Russ please read what we have had in the Newsgroups header for 9
months or more now. It says explicitly how a Newsgroups header in mail is
to be interpreted (and likely renders some ancient rn practice
non-compliant - I can live with that). We can, I suppose, go back and
review what we have already written in the Newsgroups header, but for now
what it says there stands.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Brad Templeton | 2 Oct 2000 19:39
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:59:37AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <20000929171423.A30855 <at> main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com> writes:
> 
> 
> >On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 05:08:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Not really that useful a feature, because they would only have this
> >magic label if they were new conforming software, and new conforming
> >software should not be sending you any e-mail unless you asked for it
> >(which you certainly would not!)
> 
> Eh? But what if the user DID ask for it? Or expressed no preference by not
> including MCT at all? Or the user sent it manually regadlesss? In those
> cases, Posted-And-Mailed gives a useful clue.

Sorry, I guess since two were confused, I will point out that the remark
in parens is to Russ.

Anyway, not including MCT is not, in the drafted spec, expressing no
preference.  It is expressing the default preference, which is 
to be "don't mail me copies."

My point was, since we are planning to specify that these replies come
only when the original poster _explicitly_ asked for them, they should
not be coming as a surprise to that poster, and as such an extra
header is not needed.   An in-reply-to which mentions the USENET message-id,
or a newsgroups header would either or both suffice.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Russ Allbery | 2 Oct 2000 19:52
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

Charles Lindsey <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

> Will Russ please read what we have had in the Newsgroups header for 9
> months or more now. It says explicitly how a Newsgroups header in mail
> is to be interpreted (and likely renders some ancient rn practice
> non-compliant - I can live with that).

It doesn't matter what we say; we're not a mail standard.  We don't get to
say what things mean in mail, as much as I'd like to change the world.
Anyway, we've had several really long discussions of this over the years
and I'm pretty burned out on discussing it; the solution we arrived at is
one I'm not at all fond of (I dislike yes/no headers, and I think using
Newsgroups is just asking for it), but I guess at some point we need to
decide something and constantly revisiting doesn't help much.

It's not, however, an ancient rn practice; I believe the most current
version of trn still does this.  But I could be wrong; I haven't used trn
in a while.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Erland Sommarskog | 2 Oct 2000 09:10
Picon
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel <at> acm.org> writes:
> In <20000929222915.11727.qmail <at> kairos.algonet.se>, on 09/29/2000
>    at 10:29 PM, sommar <at> algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) said:
>
> >Only trivialists will look in the header for such information.
>
> Ad hominem alert! Instead of calling those who disagree with you
> trivialists, why note explain your reasons for not wanting it in the
> headers? You admit that you want him to know that it is a copy, you
> have no control over whether he sees the mail copy before or after the
> news copy, and the headers seem to be the obvious place to put the
> indication.

The header is the obvious place if you want to smack him in the head
later on when he complains that you didn't tell him that it was a copy
of a news article.

The right place if I want a user to see this information is in the body.

> Now, maybe there is no value to having an agent automatically flag
> copies, but you haven't made any such case. So far I haven't seen any
> valid arguments against having such a header, although there are
> issues as to whether this is the appropriate forum.

Problem is that that would be a mail agent, which is not covered by
this standard. For a Posted-and-Mailed header to be meaningful, it
would have to be part of the mail standard.
--
Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar <at> algonet.se
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Erland Sommarskog | 3 Oct 2000 10:17
Picon
Picon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00

Russ Allbery <rra <at> stanford.edu> writes:
> It's not, however, an ancient rn practice; I believe the most current
> version of trn still does this.  But I could be wrong; I haven't used trn
> in a while.

I would suppose that trn still will do this, if you tell it to. This
has never been mandatory - well, maybe it has, but in such case before
I first read the man page for rn way back in 1986. It has however been
in the default value for MAILHEADER, and probably still is. Myself,
being a long-time user of rn and trn, I haven't sent out mail with
Newsgroups headers for the last twelve years or so.
--
Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar <at> algonet.se
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz | 3 Oct 2000 12:31
Picon
Favicon

Re: Mail-Copies-To.00


In <20001002071026.403.qmail <at> kairos.algonet.se>, on 10/02/2000
   at 07:10 AM, sommar <at> algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) said:

>Problem is that that would be a mail agent, which is not covered by
>this standard.

This draft describes the meaning of the header; it does prescribe the
behavior of the mail agent. Were it to do the latter then I would
agree that it is misplaced.

>For a Posted-and-Mailed header to be meaningful, it
>would have to be part of the mail standard.

Now that might be a problem, since we want this to be considered a
valid header in mail and we don't want it to be defined with some
other meaning. Has anyone touched bases with DRUMS about reserving
this header name?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane