Re: Mail-Followup-To (was Re: IDEA License)

[Julian H. Stacey]

Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 27/03/13 14:40, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > I created it, as far as I recall, from my copy direct from Ulrich, 
> > which had no Mail-Followup-To
> 
> Correct, the problem originated when you replied[1] to Werner's mail[2].
> Werner's mail had the following header:
> 
> Mail-Followup-To: "Julian H. Stacey" , gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> 
> The difference between that line and a simple Reply-to-All is that Werner 
> would
> be in the recipient list with the Reply-to-All, and not with the
> Mail-Followup-To. Your reply should have only had gnupg-users@gnupg.org and 
> your
> manually added CC to Ulrich as recipients, since your MUA would conclude that
> you don't need to CC yourself :).
> 
> > I'm familiar with Reply-to:  Not familar with Mail-Followup-To:
> > What's the difference ?
> 
> Because Reply-To didn't really work out in practice for mailing lists, DJB 
> came
> up with two "non-canon" mail headers to remove ambiguity from the meaning of 
> the
> Reply-To header. He describes it in [3]. Not everybody agrees with his
> view/solution, though.

The quoted [3] contains:
News: The following list is obsolete. Daniel Faber has
collected a newer list of Mail-Followup-To implementations
at http://www.leptonite.org/mft/software.html.
which contains refs to claws mail etc ...
http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1441
"Status:RESOLVED WONTFIX" ... 2007 2008 ... 
Colin Leroy 2008-07-05 15:52:44 CEST 
I'm marking this WONTFIX.
So
Claws-mail project have no interest to implement Mail-Followup-To ..
& Claws-mail is a modern mailer (a friend who used to use
EXMH reckons claws-mail is slicker/ better/ more modern than
exmh he used & I still use)


http://larve.net/people/hugo/2000/07/ml-mutt
"It is not a standard .. a hack that can potentially do
more harm than good"

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
Includes reply-to
Does NOT include Followup-To

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/43/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
The ''Mail-Followup-To'' header
November 1997 ... Internet-Draft

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2076
3.5 Response control
...  "ambiguous, since" ... controversial ...  RFC 822 RFC 1036
author

Reply-to:
Works fine on lists I run with majordomo on berklix.org
seems to help lots of people running a variety of MUAs on 
Microsoft & Unix etc do better than they did before.

Peter off list sent me a PS:
> Oh, and BTW, I couldn't easily find whether EXMH supports
> Mail-Followup-To (which makes me lean towards: no, it
> doesn't, because you'd expect documentation to show up if
> it did).

I looked (after doing a'make patch' to extract
source trees on latest FreeBS current ports)

cd /pri/FreeBSD/branches/-current/ports/mail/exmh2
find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Followup-To {} \;

find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Reply-To {} \;
./work/exmh-2.8.0/exmh.CHANGES
./work/exmh-2.8.0/exmh.README
./work/exmh-2.8.0/exmh.TODO
./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/html/exmh-faq.html
./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/html/exmh.CHANGES.txt
./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/html/reference.html
./work/exmh-2.8.0/lib/thread.tcl
./work/exmh-2.8.0/misc/mhthread
./work/exmh-2.8.0/misc/mhthread-manpage.html

cd /pri/FreeBSD/branches/-current/ports/mail/nmh
find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Followup-To {} \;
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/DIFFERENCES
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/FAQ
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/TODO
./work/nmh-1.5/etc/replgroupcomps

find . -type f -exec grep -l -i Reply-To {} \;
./work/nmh-1.5/ChangeLog
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/ChangeLog_MH-3_to_MH-6.6
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/ChangeLog_MH-6.7.0_to_MH-6.8.4.html
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/DIFFERENCES
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/FAQ
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/MAIL.FILTERING
./work/nmh-1.5/docs/TODO
./work/nmh-1.5/etc/digestcomps
./work/nmh-1.5/etc/replcomps
./work/nmh-1.5/etc/replgroupcomps
./work/nmh-1.5/man/mh-format.man
./work/nmh-1.5/test/forw/test-forw-digest
./work/nmh-1.5/test/repl/test-multicomp
./work/nmh-1.5/test/repl/test-trailing-newline
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/forwsbr.c
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/mhlsbr.c
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/post.c
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/rcvdist.c
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/replsbr.c
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/slocal.c
./work/nmh-1.5/uip/spost.c

Conclusion: I will ignore/ forget Followup-To & stick to Reply-To.


Werner wrote:

> To: Peter Lebbing 
> Cc: "Julian H. Stacey" , gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> 
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:27, pe...@digitalbrains.com said:
> 
> > Whether you like the headers 

Mail-Followup-To (was Re: IDEA License)

[Peter Lebbing]

On 27/03/13 14:40, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> I created it, as far as I recall, from my copy direct from Ulrich, 
> which had no Mail-Followup-To

Correct, the problem originated when you replied[1] to Werner's mail[2].
Werner's mail had the following header:

Mail-Followup-To: "Julian H. Stacey" , gnupg-users@gnupg.org

The difference between that line and a simple Reply-to-All is that Werner would
be in the recipient list with the Reply-to-All, and not with the
Mail-Followup-To. Your reply should have only had gnupg-users@gnupg.org and your
manually added CC to Ulrich as recipients, since your MUA would conclude that
you don't need to CC yourself :).

> I'm familiar with Reply-to:  Not familar with Mail-Followup-To:
> What's the difference ?

Because Reply-To didn't really work out in practice for mailing lists, DJB came
up with two "non-canon" mail headers to remove ambiguity from the meaning of the
Reply-To header. He describes it in [3]. Not everybody agrees with his
view/solution, though.

Whether you like the headers Bernstein created or not, it would seem Werner
didn't want to be on the recipient list, which is why I brought it up in my PS.

HTH,

Peter.

[1]
[2]
[3]

-- 
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at 

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users