On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:30 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
But, with regard to the original problem, it's not so easy to post to just THIS list.
this server, unfortunately, runs on software that doesn't support RFC2369.
<http://www.zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC2369/Output/chapter3.html>
the list-post header is what you want, and part of that RFC. Mailman supports these headers, although we get occasional screams from folks who are more interested in their way than the right way. but the idea behind 2369 was to build in standardized headers for just what you want -- and to make it easier for the folks writing mail clients to build automated ways of accessing and using that information. Of course, the mail client writers have little incentive to support that if people don't build the headers into the lists...
Yes. I am familiar with all the verbiage about munging Reply To: headers by list software, but if there is no Reply To: in the submission does it not make sense for the list software to add one pointing to the list itself?
it depends. But that's the real reason why we need to get support for 2369 into servers and mail clients. Because reply-to doesn't solve the problem, even though people keep using it to try to: because the real solution isn't forcing replies, and because clients see reply as a binary operation (reply/reply-all). in reality, with lists it's a tri-state operation (reply/reply-list/reply-all), and that's what List-post is supposed to allow to happen.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
