Re: Understanding response protocols

On Tue June 7 2005 01:13, Hector Santos wrote:

> > 550 Return Path not verifiable. (in reply to RCPT TO command)
> >
> > Please fix your buggy server.
> 
> Oh boy!  There goes your modus operandi again!  Here we go again with the 2
> year old "Brucy" degrading every conversation ANYWAY or ANYWHERE when he
> don't get his way!  Brucy,  are you capable of having an form of
> non-confrontable conversion?  Nah, that is impossible!

You are overreacting.  There was a polite request to fix a problem at
your side.
 
> I did this the last time we had this Reply-To-List/Reply-To debate to prove
> the point that I don't what you to REPLY directly to me but to the LIST
> instead.

Then use the Reply-To field which is provided for that purpose.  It is
common courtesy to copy an author on a response unless that author has
clearly indicated otherwise.  The Reply-To field is defined precisely
to provide such an indication.

> Pretty much for the same reason you now finally saw the light and 
> are forcing a natural reply to the list by defining Reply-To: to the list
> instead of the AUTHOR - YOU!

I've been using Reply-To consistently for years.  It involves no
"forcing" of any kind.
 
> > 1. mailing lists have been around since well before RFC 724 (1977).
> 
> And what kind of environment did we have in 1997?
> 
> ONLINE systems?  Since when where you able to set a Reply-To in MUA in 1977?

Trivial to do at that time, since most UAs simply provided a template
and opened the user's preferred editor.

[much rambling and ad-hominem remarks elided]
> >   Note
> >    that RFC 724 also defines the semantics of the Reply-To field as an
> >    author-supplied suggestion for responses and specifically mentions
> >   "text-message teleconferencing", i.e. mailing lists.
> 
> Right, and to clearly point out what it says:
> 
> |           More interesting
> |           is a case such as text-message teleconferencing in which an
> |           automatic distribution facility  is  provided  and  a  user
> |           submitting  an  "entry" for distribution only needs to send
> |           their message to the mailbox(es) indicated in  the  "Reply-
> |           to:" field.
> 
> Which suggest that in a group environment, the natural reply is to go to the
> suggested reply-to field.

No, it says that the author can suggest that replies be directed to a
list mailbox, and/or to other mailboxes.  There is nothing anywhere
about a "natural reply".
 
[more rambling elided]
> Clearly, you have no credentials in mail software designs.  Absolutely no
> brain for the matter. You are a paper pusher, doc pusher, technie end-user.
> No more, no less and when you can't hack it, you resort to put downs and
> ad-nausem facts that are clearly not even in question.

Your remarks, in addition to being untrue, are inappropriate. Please
read RFC 3934, to which you have been previously referred.