drieux wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 23, 2003, at 11:22 US/Pacific, R. Joseph Newton wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > Why is there no Resent-By field in this message?
> [..]
>
>
...
>
> So which is your real issue here that has you
> concerned? The fact that this can be done? Or that
> there are marketting mumblers out there who think
> that they can productize some sort of mail application
> at both the user level and at the transfer agent level
> that would be able to prevent this from happening
> pursuant to the expectation that this would prevent
> some of the corporate scandals that arise when email
> leaks, etc, etc, etc, and hence be a viable 'bizniz plan'.
>
> ciao
> drieux
Nothing that complex. My issue is comprehesibility of the flow of
discussion on this list. Threading is a specific factor in that
comprehensibility. I am somewhat fatalistic when it comes to newbies.
Obviously, people who are just getting there feet in the water cannot be
expected to be aware of the structure of mail transmission. Most mail
clients [wisely] hide about 80% of the metadata sent. I would hope
though, that those who come on the list as helpers, and assume an air of
deep experience, would recognize those standards most pertinent to clear
communication. I am convinced that the two appendices I cited are the
most critical to cogent tracking of the discussions posted here.
Any one post may touch on issues which, quite reasonably, follow
different paths of development. When the threads of reference are
properly maintained, these threads can be very rich. When they are left
to idiot thread based only on a /Re:\s+/i prepended to the subject line,
they become indeed a dischordant mumble.
As for the means by which this post arrive at my mailbox. I see nothing
in the return path that would indicate Jason as the proximate sender. As
I said, I believe that source of mailings should always be transparent.
This post as it is, originated from your server:
Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received:
from onion.perl.org (onion.develooper.com
[63.251.223.166]) by sapir.efn.org
(8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with SMTP id hANJcF22080894
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun,
23 Nov 2003 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received:
(qmail 58645 invoked by uid 1005); 23 Nov
2003 19:38:14 -0000
List-Subscribe:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...[ internal perl.org]
Received:
(qmail 6029 invoked by uid 225); 23 Nov 2003
19:38:13 -0000
Delivered-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received:
(qmail 6024 invoked by uid 507); 23 Nov 2003
19:38:12 -0000
Received:
from wetware.wetware.com (HELO wetware.com)
(199.108.16.1) by
one.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.27-dev) with
ESMTP; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:37:40
-0800
Received:
from jeeves ([199.108.16.11]
helo=wetware.com) by wetware.com with esmtp
(Exim 4.20) id 1AO038-0000CZ-5R for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 23 Nov 2003
11:37:38 -0800
In the current state of internet mail, utmost clarity ias to origin and
forwarding paths is an absolutely essential courtesy.
Please reread the standard, start using full header view to analyse the
pathways, and set a good example for newbies.
Joseph
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
