ezmlm: Thread: open for business


[<<] [<] Page 1 of 2 [>] [>>]
Subject: open for business
From: "D. J. Bernstein" ####@####.####
Date: 23 Dec 1996 21:44:17 -0000
Message-Id: <19961223214417.22758.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>

Starting with a careless mistake---I meant to set up the mailing list to
defer early messages, but instead I set it up to throw them away. Sorry
about that.

---Dan
Put an end to unauthorized mail relaying. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html

Subject: Re: open for business
From: Sudish Joseph ####@####.####
Date: 23 Dec 1996 21:49:15 -0000
Message-Id: <yvia681thr7q.fsf@atreides.mindspring.com>

In article ####@####.####
"D. J. Bernstein" ####@####.#### writes:
> Starting with a careless mistake---I meant to set up the mailing list to
> defer early messages, but instead I set it up to throw them away. Sorry
> about that.

Did you get my message re: not using the envelope for addresses when
selecting a subscription address?  Do you still have a copy?  I do not
wish to type it in again, but feel strongly enough on the subject that
I'll repost if needed.

-Sudish


Subject: Re: open for business
From: "D. J. Bernstein" ####@####.####
Date: 23 Dec 1996 22:05:10 -0000
Message-Id: <19961223220510.23400.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>

> Did you get my message re: not using the envelope for addresses when
> selecting a subscription address?

Nope.

I presume that what you said was (1) the envelope sender address is
sometimes broken and (2) it's often a real pain to configure the
envelope sender address.

In response, I'll point out that you can send a message to

   ####@####.####

to change the target address.

I was originally going to use From with Reply-To as a backup, but they
have the same problem as the envelope sender---they're sometimes broken,
and it's often a pain to configure them. In contrast, every user is able
to (and knows how to!) configure the envelope _recipient_ address. 

---Dan
Put an end to unauthorized mail relaying. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html

Subject: Re: open for business
From: David Dyer-Bennet ####@####.####
Date: 23 Dec 1996 22:31:03 -0000
Message-Id: <19961223222502.10127.qmail@gw.ddb.com>

D. J. Bernstein ####@####.#### writes on 23 December 1996 at 22:05:10 -0000
 > > Did you get my message re: not using the envelope for addresses when
 > > selecting a subscription address?
 > 
 > Nope.
 > 
 > I presume that what you said was (1) the envelope sender address is
 > sometimes broken and (2) it's often a real pain to configure the
 > envelope sender address.
 > 
 > In response, I'll point out that you can send a message to
 > 
 >    ####@####.####
 > 
 > to change the target address.

I see the following cases:

1.  Correctly configured "normal" setup.  In this, the envelope
address and the From: address are the same, so it doesn't matter which
you choose.

2.  People trying to forge subscriptions.  Since you're using the
mailback verification, they won't be able to manage this, so it
doesn't matter which address you choose.

3.  Correctly configured unusual setup.  For example, I might be a
low-use site, and have configured my mail to put in a reply-to
automatically pointing to my main site.  In this case, envelope and
Reply-to: will differ, and Reply-to: is correct.  People who've
managed to configure something like this can of course figure out how
to use your extended form of subscribe; but it's still an additional
thing to remember.  I've configured my site to take care of what I
normally want automatically, precisely to allow me to get out of the
habit of thinking about it each time I send mail.  Also, people are
used to the mailing list manager using the reply-to if present, taking
that away will mess things up for them.

4.  Incorrectly configured setup.  Envelope is probably more likely to
be right than From:.  If Reply-To: is present, either the user is
trying to do something unusual, or perhaps he's trying to work around
the brokenness of the rest of the setup.  It's not likely to be wrong
due to mis-configuration, I don't think.

My conclusion from this is that, *if* Reply-to: is present, your best
bet both for accuracy and for meeting the users expectations is to use
it.  AFTER that, we can debate From: vs. envelope, and I might give
the nod to envelope in that one.  

 > I was originally going to use From with Reply-To as a backup, but they
 > have the same problem as the envelope sender---they're sometimes broken,
 > and it's often a pain to configure them. In contrast, every user is able
 > to (and knows how to!) configure the envelope _recipient_ address. 

A netscape or general windows user can configure From: easily.  A unix
or coroporate user probably can't, but it's probably correct.  The
unix user can configure Reply-to: very easily, and if they've done it
they probably mean it.

Subject: Re: open for business
From: "D. J. Bernstein" ####@####.####
Date: 23 Dec 1996 23:34:45 -0000
Message-Id: <19961223233445.24166.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>

> For example, I might be a
> low-use site, and have configured my mail to put in a reply-to
> automatically pointing to my main site.

Why Reply-To? Why not From and the envelope sender?

It's not clear to me that Reply-To, when it's present, is more reliable
than the envelope sender address. Some MUAs copy From to Reply-To on
every message; if From is unusable, Reply-To will be unusable too.

> Also, people are
> used to the mailing list manager using the reply-to if present,

Other than majordomo, which of the popular MLMs do this?

---Dan
Put an end to unauthorized mail relaying. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html

Subject: Re: open for business
From: Paul Fox ####@####.####
Date: 24 Dec 1996 00:06:22 -0000
Message-Id: <1995.851385624@foxharp.boston.ma.us>

 > > For example, I might be a
 > > low-use site, and have configured my mail to put in a reply-to
 > > automatically pointing to my main site.
 > 
 > Why Reply-To? Why not From and the envelope sender?
 > 
 > It's not clear to me that Reply-To, when it's present, is more reliable
 > than the envelope sender address. Some MUAs copy From to Reply-To on
 > every message; if From is unusable, Reply-To will be unusable too.

but is Reply-to _less_ reliable?  sometimes it's more reliable (the user
explicitly set it) and sometimes its _as_ reliable (you say sometimes its
copied).  but is it ever worse?

 > 
 > > Also, people are
 > > used to the mailing list manager using the reply-to if present,
 > 
 > Other than majordomo, which of the popular MLMs do this?

well, just because majordomo does it doesn't necessarily mean it's a _bad_
thing, right?  :-)  besides, i thought i'd used it with a listserv server,
but could be wrong.

for a user that knows and understands the Reply-to header, it's the natural
way of redirecting followups.

paul

Subject: Re: open for business
From: Sudish Joseph ####@####.####
Date: 24 Dec 1996 00:29:28 -0000
Message-Id: <yvia20cgiyd5.fsf@atreides.mindspring.com>

"D. J. Bernstein" ####@####.#### writes:
> I presume that what you said was (1) the envelope sender address is
> sometimes broken and (2) it's often a real pain to configure the
> envelope sender address.

The latter, actually.  I'm not aware of any other MTA (other than
qmail) that's reasonable about letting the user set the envelope
sender.  Most users aren't even aware of the existence of an envelope,
or how the envelope controls mail delivery.  However, most users are
aware of how their 822 headers look.

> In response, I'll point out that you can send a message to
>    ####@####.####
> to change the target address.

Cool.  I think it's neat that ezmlm will work off of qmail's
features.  I like this a lot.

> I was originally going to use From with Reply-To as a backup, but they
> have the same problem as the envelope sender---they're sometimes broken,
> and it's often a pain to configure them. In contrast, every user is able
> to (and knows how to!) configure the envelope _recipient_ address. 

Good point.  I guess that my only concern is that this is a new way of
doing things and will surprise the unwary more often than not; I did
the wrong thing, out of sheer laziness.  I'm sure lots of others will
as well.

Most users, even novices, do go to the trouble of setting their From:
address, so I'd like to see that used.  (I work at an ISP and on our
internal newsgroups it is the users who answer questions from other
users on how to set headers.  These are mostly people entirely new to
the net and even to computing.)

Most of all, using "echo subscribe | mail list-request" is easier to
do when From: is used.  (Yes, I should "echo subscribe me", but...)

-Sudish

Subject: Re: open for business
From: Sudish Joseph ####@####.####
Date: 24 Dec 1996 00:48:53 -0000
Message-Id: <yviazpz4hiwc.fsf@atreides.mindspring.com>

In article ####@####.####
Paul Fox ####@####.#### writes:
> but is Reply-to _less_ reliable?  sometimes it's more reliable (the user
> explicitly set it) and sometimes its _as_ reliable (you say sometimes its
> copied).  but is it ever worse?

The intent of From: is to present your normal delivery address, while
that of Reply-To: is to announce a temporary change in that address
(and other variants thereof, gory examples to be found in 822).  So,
From: should have preference over Reply-To:.

Sadly, many set Reply-To: instead of setting From:, which is quite
weird.  What does majordomo do when presented both headers?  Since
it's been around for so long, the best course may be to emulate it.

-Sudish

Subject: Re: open for business
From: Vince Vielhaber ####@####.####
Date: 24 Dec 1996 00:56:05 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.OS2.3.95.961223194744.64k-100000@paprika.michvhf.com>

On 23 Dec 1996, Sudish Joseph wrote:

> weird.  What does majordomo do when presented both headers?  Since
> it's been around for so long, the best course may be to emulate it.

Majordomo *does* allow you to specify the address.  It takes list owner
approval, but it does work. 

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: ####@####.####   flame-mail: /dev/null
       # include <std/disclaimers.h>                   TEAM-OS2 
   Online Searchable Campground Listings    http://www.camping-usa.com
==========================================================================



Subject: Re: open for business
From: "Frederik Lindberg" ####@####.####
Date: 24 Dec 1996 01:07:06 -0000
Message-Id: <19961224010113.16929.qmail@id.wustl.edu>

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:50:01 -0500 (est), Vince Vielhaber wrote:

>Majordomo *does* allow you to specify the address.  It takes list owner
>approval, but it does work. 

Since exmlm requires confirmation anyway, it should be safe. If you don't get
the reply to the first message, you can't send the second.

/Fred


[<<] [<] Page 1 of 2 [>] [>>]


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.21.