[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-users
Subject:    Re: [SPAM?] Re: list-reply without Cc?
From:       Ben McGinnes <ben () adversary ! org>
Date:       2016-08-31 2:33:30
Message-ID: 20160831023330.GI18039 () adversary ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:42:10PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:08:30PM +0200, Gabriel Philippe wrote:
>> I don't know if this is relevant: the list is not a real list with
>> appropriate headers, and most of the people use poorly-designed MUA
>> (no Mail-Followup-To, etc.).
>=20
> To be fair, Mail-Followup-To was never turned into a standard.

Yeah, that's fair.  It's not like majordomo and LISTSERV were going to
change back then anyway.

> You could make a (convincing) argument that Mutt is incorrect for
> continuing to use it, vs. that other MUAs are wrong for not using /
> following it.

This, however, I must disagree on for the simple reason that the
absence of MUST or SHOULD with regards any project or proposal does
not automatically imply MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT.  Since the existing
standards made no decision, it's a design decision for as long as it
does not interfere with a standardised feature or attribute.

:D

> It's a draft from 1997 that expired in 1998, and I don't think was ever
> ratified as standards-track or as a standard.

I think you're probably right.  That's roughly when it started popping
up in Mailman and then later in Sympa.  Too many geeks adored the
List-Id tag for the benefit of procmail (and now mailfilter) rules for
it to ever die.


Regards,
Ben

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]