Date   : Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:19:44 +0100
From   : James Fidell <james@...>
Subject: Re: Broken message headers on this mailing list

*Sigh*

Those people who don't like the way it works now should read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a start.
Then read RFCs 822 and 2822.

Quoting Jonathan Graham Harston (jgh@...):

> I'm sorry to keep banging on about this, but something HAS to be done.
> Who on earth is the list administrator, please do something!

I am the list admin.  Nothing *has* to be done.  The moon will not
fall out of the sky tonight if things stay as they are.

> There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the message headers that originate from
> this mailing list that allows somebody to reply back to the list, and not
> to the author of the individual message.  
>  
> There is no Reply-To header, and the From header lists the author, viz:
> From: "Mark de Weger" <mark@...>

Read the documents I've listed above.  This is intentional.

> Consequently, the ONLY place a Reply can go to is back to the author of a
> message.  This is getting EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING!!!!!

What you mean is: Your email software can't handle replying any other way,
or you don't know how to make it do it.  Mine works fine.  As does that
used by many others on this list and tens of thousands of other lists.

> Also, the To: header does not specify the recipient.  My mail server is
> about to move to a system of silently destroying all emails that do not
> specify the actual recipent in the To: header, as they look like spam.

RFC2822: "The To: header should specify the primary recipient".  The
primary recipient is the mailing list address.  You are just someone
who happens to get a copy of the message.

> You may comment that I should use a different mail provideder.  NO!  I
> *WANT* messages that look as though they are spam to be destroyed.  It is
> the responsibility of responsible message generators that are not spam to
> ensure they do not look like spam.

Beautiful.  Create a system that will fail to handle RFC-compliant email
correctly and then demand that everyone else change to suit.  Ever stop
to think  that this might be an indication that your rules for deciding
what is spam are wrong?  I take it you're not interested in receiving
Bcc'ed messages either?

"It is the responsibility of responsible message generators that are
not spam to ensure they do not look like spam."  What an utter load of
bollocks.  Try "It is the responsibility of spam-filters to ensure that
they do not generate false positives."

> At the end of this message I have appended the entire headers from a
> recently-received message.  Absolutely nowhere does
> "bbc-micro@..." appear, other than in the To: header.  As I've
> already mentioned, the To: header should have my email address in it,
> otherwise it is defined as being spam. The From: header lists the author
> of the message - that's correct.  But there is nothing to specify how to
> post back to the mailing list.

Wrong.  Such messages are not defined as spam by anything but the mail
system that you are choosing to use.

> On the other hand, another mailing list I subscribe to *does* provide
> useful headers.  Cut down, they are as follows:
> ----8<----
> >From news@... Tue Apr 23 15:53:09 2002
> To: jgh@...
> ReplyTo: comp.os.cpm@...
> Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
> Subject: Re: Is it posible to get CP/M to work with Linux/DOSemu?
> From: Dowe Keller <dowe@...>
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 03:00:05 -0400
> Message-Id: <E16zuHV-0002fq-00@...>
> ----8<----
>  
> It passes the spam-filter, as it's destination is my actual email address. 
> The From: header correctly specifies the author, and the Reply-To: header
> correctly specifies the posting address to send a message back to the
> list.

I'm on an occasional mailing lists like this, too.  They're a pain in the
arse to filter into different mailboxes correctly, because they usually
also omit the "Sender: " header and don't have a consistent "To:" header.
By comparison, some of the lists that are set up exactly the same way
as this one include:

  aironet@...
  bsdi-users@...
  bugtraq@...
  exim-users@...
  gnokii@...
  grip-users@... (and all other sourceforge mailing lists)
  incidents@...
  inn-workers@...
  linux-kernel@...
  majordomo-users@...
  mysql@...
  nanog@...
  redhat-watch-list@... (and all other redhat mailing lists)
  samba@...

and these are only the ones I'm on that I think other people might
have heard of.  I guess it'll be getting pretty quiet in your neck of
the woods fairly soon.

> Also, there is the added usefulness of a Newsgroups: header that
> identifies the group it is a part of.

This has nothing to do with USENET though.

> Whoever is the adminstrator please, Please, *PLEASE*!!!!! ensure the To:
> and Reply-To: headers appear correctly.

They already do.  Just not how you think they should.  There's a
difference.  You are defining correct by how your non-RFC compliant
anti-spam system works.  I am defining correct by conforming to the
RFCs.

James