nanog mailing list archives
Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)
From: Paul Jakma <paul () clubi ie>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:12:27 +0100 (IST)
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Really? My responsibility to make sure you control your outbound mail. Got it.
You really think everyone on this list should remember the preference of every other poster as to whether they do or do not want a direct copy? Maybe we could have a list on a web page and everyone could check the list before replying to a post. That'd be really useful. But wait, seeing as how we've got these new-fangled computer thingies that can take care of drudgery for us, how about we provide a way to allow the poster to specify what their preference is, and then other people's computers could automatically use that preference!
Oh wait: http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/822/28.htm Someone already thought of that! In *1982*. Gosh, how prescient!(sorry if the sarcasm is a little thick, but I groan and shake my head every time someone posts to NANOG about how people should please stop including them in list replies. When I see someone who usually has a modicum of clue do same I just have to reply. :) )
Oh. Any suggestions on how to do that using my mailer?
No idea, consult its documentation. I do ctrl+r in my MUA, in Netscape Communicator or Mozilla mail or Thunderbird you just add the address in a new field and click the drop down list and change the 'To' to 'Reply-To'
If your mailer can not do something as simple as allow you to specify the Reply-To, I suggest you upgrade to something that is at least half-decent.
And I'll delete the other copy you sent me for you.
That's another option I guess.
Where is RFC 2821 is this requirement, by the way? RFC 2822 says it is optional but seems to be less than useful in the context here.
Yes, of course Reply-To is optional. Absence of Reply-to indicates reply should go to sender.
regards, -- Paul Jakma paul () clubi ie paul () jakma org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam () dishone st Fortune: October 12, the Discovery. It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Current thread:
- Re: Even you can be hacked, (continued)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Owen DeLong (Jun 10)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Andy Dills (Jun 10)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Jun 10)
- [OT] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Paul Jakma (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Randy Bush (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Paul Jakma (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense and responsibility Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense and responsibility Andy Dills (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Paul Jakma (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Paul Jakma (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Steve Gibbard (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Joel Jaeggli (Jun 11)
- Re: [OnTopic] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 11)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Jeff Shultz (Jun 10)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Matthew Crocker (Jun 10)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Stephen Sprunk (Jun 10)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. (Jun 11)
- Re: Even you can be hacked Henry Linneweh (Jun 11)