[conspire] Ecuador hats

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

>  Replies to email lists are vary from site to site.

{sigh}

Here we go again.  (Not your fault, Paul.  As you'll see, this is such a 
worn-out topic that I've FAQed it twice.)

> For conspire, Reply: goes to the individual

Which is what the Reply-Sender command ("Reply") is supposed to do.

> Reply all: goes to list and individual

Which is what the Reply-All command is supposed to do.

We know that's what's supposed to happen because the IETF, which writes
the standards that make the Internet function, said, in 2001.


> On many other email reflectors, Reply and Reply All go to the group.

Which is because _somebody_ is still ignoring what the IETF said, 
21 years after its ruling, and messing with people's mail at the MLM
(Mailing List Manager) in violation of Internet standards.

>  One needs to manually edit TO to get anything else.

Correct.  Which is one of _numerous_ adverse consequences that tend to
follow a gross violation of IETF standards for SMTP mail reply semantics.

> IMHO I like Rick's scheme, But sites for big Groups seem to think
> everyone should get everything.

Very mild correction:  It's not _my_ scheme; it's standard SMTP
message reply semantics, done the correct way, as detailed by Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), the body that defines and documents Internet
technical standards in the RFC (Request for Comment) technical-standards
documents -- specifically, RFCs 2822 and 2369.


I documented this matter in the FAQ for another mailing list I've hosted
for many years, the SKEPTIC mailing list -- and will quote that FAQ item
below.  

To fill in the jargon used on this matter, you are talking about a
standards-violating practice, that until 2001 was the subject of an
infamous, noxious, acrimonious, long-running Internet debate, over
"Reply-To: munging".  ("Munge" is a verb meaning "to force", "to
override".)

For decades, novice users demanded that listadmins configure their MLMs
(mailing list managers; programs like GNU Mailman) to meddle with the
headers of all postings transiting the MLM, to force ("munge") them to
grow a "Reply-To:" SMTP header specifying the mailing list address, with
the result that any recipient's Reply-Sender command gets mislead into
doing a (really stupid) thing, sending the mail to _the list_, which 
is what the -other- reply command, the Reply-All, command is for.

The noxious debate, where (primarily) novices claimed "munging" was good
and necessary, and (primarily) veteran Internet users said "no, that is
not what Reply-To: is for, and you really ought to learn the proper role 
of _both_ of your mail program's reply commands, was settled once and
for all 21 years ago in 2001 by IETF, in two RFCs.

No surprise, IETF agreed with the veteran Internet users and not with
the novices.  "Munging" was unofficially and disputably a terrible idea
before 2001, and officially and undisputably a terrible idea ever since
then.


And here's the SKEPTIC FAQ:
http://linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/skeptic_faq.html#reply

---<begin>---

Q: How do I use the "Reply-To:" mail header?

A: The "Reply-To:" mail header on SKEPTIC mail was formerly "munged"
(overridden) by the mailing list software, in an attempt to force most
replies back to the mailing list, itself, during the jhu.edu-era
incarnations (prior to 2016's migration to linuxmafia.com). "Munging"
instructs mail clients to redirect their 'r' (or similar) reply-sender
commands back to the mailing list only. If you desired to send offlist
private mail to a fellow participant, you thus needed to manually
overcome this forced reply semantics (substituting the desired
recipient's private e-mail address, before sending); else you found that
you had accidentally sent a private communication publicly, to the
entire mailing list. This notorious "munging" hazard has now been
eliminated, starting with linuxmafia.com hosting in October 2016.

What remains, however, is confusion on the part of some, predominantly
less-technical, mailing list members. A faction of early Internet users
worldwide held a position that "munging" (overriding at the level of
mailing list software) was an appropriate use of the Reply-To: header,
came to expect its altered reply semantics (where "reply-sender" is
forced back to the list), and came to demand such overriding. However,
in 2001, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) weighed in with SMTP
standards RFC 2822 and 2369, decreeing that, no, Reply-To: "munging" is
not appropriate
(http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-still-harmful.html).
linuxmafia.com complies with IETF standards.  Therefore, its mailing
lists will not violate them, merely because some users demand Reply-To:
header abuse.

In consequence, you should always use your e-mail software's:

o  reply-all command to continue on-list discussion.
o  reply-sender command to depart from on-list discussion into private mail.

The _legitimate_ use of Reply-To:, entirely in your hands, involves you
specifying an alternate return address for any direct replies, e.g.,
because you'll be spending several weeks away during which your
preferred direct-response mailbox is alternate-me at example.com. To so
indicate, you would add:

  Reply-To: alternate-me at example.com

...to your existing SMTP headers atop outgoing mail.

---<end>---


Here is the coverage I put into my _personal_ FAQ in 2001, when I hoped
(naively) that people would realise IETF had made this whole bit of
stupidity go away:


http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/netiquette.html#replyto


---<begin>---

Q: "This mailing list's software should auto-add a Reply-To header to
all list posts, pointing back to the list."

A:  No.

There used to be some real if minor debate about this subject through
the 1990s, though proponents of the referenced "munging" (forcing)
procedure never had a respectable technical leg to stand on, even on the
basis of the moldy 1982 SMTP standard. Then, by 2001 (in RFCs 2822 and
2369), the IETF definitively fixed the alleged problem, clarifying once
and for all that munging is not a legitimate use of the Reply-To header,
and providing official support for better ways to handle many-to-many
e-mail. Those better ways are being handled by newer e-mail clients.

Some commentators haven't yet caught up. They need to realise this is a
dead issue: "Reply-To munging" lost.

Don't take my word for it: Read Neale Pickett's concise summary
(http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-still-harmful.html).
[...]

---<end>---


I'm hoping _some_ day that bad idea will finally stop cropping up.