From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jun 28 12:34:28 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40AFF37B405 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:34:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 1527 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jun 2001 19:34:21 -0000 Received: from pd9508818.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO speedy.gsinet) (217.80.136.24) by mail.gmx.net (mail05) with SMTP; 28 Jun 2001 19:34:21 -0000 Received: (from sittig@localhost) by speedy.gsinet (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06163 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:03:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:03:23 +0200 From: Gerhard Sittig To: "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" Subject: Re: OT Reply-To munging (was: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD) Message-ID: <20010628190323.J17514@speedy.gsinet> Mail-Followup-To: "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" References: <01C0FEFE.8EB2BA80.wmoran@iowna.com> <01062713134503.00453@mukappa.home.com> <20010627230347.I17514@speedy.gsinet> <004a01c0ff81$3a3093a0$0408a8c0@kiste> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <004a01c0ff81$3a3093a0$0408a8c0@kiste>; from michaelnottebrock@gmx.net on Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 05:20:00AM +0200 Organization: System Defenestrators Inc. Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I do write this to the public since I feel the topic to be relevant for the operation of the list -- and some people still don't get that the mangling is doing harm ... :< BTW the lates thread about it has happened only some six weeks ago and contains the <20010514192511.U253@speedy.gsinet> message with many links to both sides of the discussion: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:25:11 +0200 From: Gerhard Sittig To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OT Reply-To: (was: Multiple copies) On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 05:20 +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > "Gerhard Sittig" wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 13:13 -0600, Mike Porter wrote: > > > > > > If the majordomo config file for the list included the line > > > "reply-to: stable@freebsd.org" [ ... ] > > > > Argh, nooooo! Not again, please! [ ... ] > > And read > http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml , too. > Those two documents should make it very clear, that the whole > thing is a typical nonsense religious war, with the only > possible conclusion being "I am not the listowner. I can do > nothing about it but hit the correct key/button in my mailer & > shut up". Hmm, I still don't see how *breaking* legitimate user requests (i.e. setting Reply-To to something the article's _author_ intends to look like) can be a good idea. It's as simple as this: The Reply-To: field is a user owned field. Period. Any list admin touching this fields should be taken out and shot. Immediately. Or slapped into the face until he's laughing. To continue slapping since he's laughing ... How would you like a mailing list software mangle your From:, Date: or Organisation: fields? It's already a PITA with all those braindead Subject: mangling. :( And I suppose those to wish for a dummy approved Reply-To: have never suffered from one of the accidents this scenario encourages and escalates. For those thinking that Reply-To: mangling would be a good idea since "it adds functionality" -- *please* think again and think hard! Doing damage to essential data (the destination of replies) cannot really be considered adding features. It definitely is breakage. I guess the most confusion about the topic comes from the inability to tell _adding_ from _munging_ -- please read again both sides of the discussion and you suddenly see that they both state the same: It would be nice to have something idiot proof. While those thinking for two more seconds come to the conclusion that *munging* data is not appropriate and breaks functionality. While *adding* a Reply-To: pointing to the list -- in case there is no such field in the original message -- is violating POLA and breaks the principle of reliable and surpriseless operation. And eyeballing every message before replying where the Reply-To: points to cannot be considered minimal work either. Hmmm ... There's no substitute for a brain and cleanly designed software. And there's no advantage in providing idiot proof solutions for those incapable of thinking. Yes, I feel the wish for the above mangling can only stem from not knowing better, since there's no real "I need this for proper operation" but only a "I would like to have it since my mailer is dumb assed". virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76 Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net -- If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above ask your parents or an adult to help you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message