Mailman 3 October 2001 - Mailman-Developers

Re: Reply-To: handling
by J C Lawrence Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:59:37 -0500 David Champion <dgc(a)uchicago.edu> wrote: > Mutt 1.3.23, the current development version (and 1.4 beta) > creates replies only to the *first* address in a multi-reply-to > message. It does permit sending such messages, though, so > internally it minimally supports the multi-address syntax. (The > reply-to element of the header structure indeed is of the same > multi-address form as other address headers, so fixing this would > be just a change to the code that generates draft forms for > replies.) Thanks for the check. Want to submit the bug report to the Mutt guys? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
by J C Lawrence Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:57 -0400 Jay R Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote: > If multiple headers are not supported, then I submit that we > should assume that a multi address Reply-to may well be a bug in > the spec Nahh. Its quite clear, and further, it also makes sense. > other address headers may appear multiple times, may they not? --<cut>-- The following table indicates limits on the number of times each field may occur in a message header as well as any special limitations on the use of those fields. An asterisk next to a value in the minimum or maximum column indicates that a special restriction appears in the Notes column. Field Min number Max number Notes trace 0 unlimited Block prepended - see 3.6.7 resent-date 0* unlimited* One per block, required if other resent fields present - see 3.6.6 resent-from 0 unlimited* One per block - see 3.6.6 resent-sender 0* unlimited* One per block, MUST occur with multi-address resent-from - see 3.6.6 resent-to 0 unlimited* One per block - see 3.6.6 resent-cc 0 unlimited* One per block - see 3.6.6 resent-bcc 0 unlimited* One per block - see 3.6.6 resent-msg-id 0 unlimited* One per block - see 3.6.6 orig-date 1 1 from 1 1 See sender and 3.6.2 sender 0* 1 MUST occur with multi- address from - see 3.6.2 reply-to 0 1 to 0 1 cc 0 1 bcc 0 1 message-id 0* 1 SHOULD be present - see 3.6.4 in-reply-to 0* 1 SHOULD occur in some replies - see 3.6.4 references 0* 1 SHOULD occur in some replies - see 3.6.4 subject 0 1 comments 0 unlimited keywords 0 unlimited optional-field 0 unlimited The exact interpretation of each field is described in subsequent sections. --<cut>-- > I'd go read 2822, but I'm too damned tired<tm>. See above. BTW: Have you checked Mutt's behaviour yet? Could/would someone check Outlook's behaviour? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

6 7

Bug in mail->news gateway in 2.0.5 (and *simple* fix)
by "Jürgen A. Erhard" Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

Bug: in Mailman/Handlers/ToUsenet.py, there are spaces inserted after colons where they are missing ("NNTP is strict about spaces after the colon in headers"). If a colon appears in a continuation line, it is treated as a header colon. Fix: skip lines that start with whitespace. For those interested, the history of the finding of the bug: Problem: my signed emails appeared on Usenet garbled. The multipart boundary had an extra space inserted (which of course the actual boundaries hadn't). After some exchange with Martin Armstrong (who made me aware of this) we concluded it had to be the mail->news gateway (as my direct mail to him, also signed, wasn't garbled). I then investigated ToUsenet.py, and found the error. Why this hasn't hit a lot more often is simple: most MUA seem to use some random gibberish as the boundary string. SEMI doesn't... Of course, if this is fixed in 2.1, you can ignore this (assuming that it comes out soonish ;-) Bye, J -- Jürgen A. Erhard (juergen.erhard(a)gmx.net, jae(a)users.sourceforge.net) MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html Life's Better Without Braces (http://www.python.org) I wish I had more energy -- or less ambition.

2 2

unsuscribe webmaster@pymagen.com
by andres gomez Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

please don´t send more messages. Thanks ___________________________________________________ GO.com Mail Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
by J C Lawrence Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:30:30 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(a)plaidworks.com> wrote: > On 10/19/01 8:50 PM, "J C Lawrence" <claw(a)2wire.com> wrote: >> I agree, except that as a moderator who regularly moves threads >> about, having the abilty to coerce, or minimally force initiation >> of the thread move as a Good and Useful Thing. > Fair 'nuff. Stylistic differences, neither is right or wrong. I do > it differently. <bow> >>> What about the case where a list is not coerced reply-to, but >>> one fo the subscribers feels it should be, so he coerces >>> reply-to covertly, which is propogated out and through the list. >> Which is actually orthogonal to the case under discussion and is >> thus a red herring. > I'm not sure I agree, but I won't push the issue. I think the MLM > should be consistent to the end-user, which means it does the same > thing based on its configuration, no matter what the original > poster sets in their headers. That means headers like reply-to > much be stripped before processing, not carried through, or you > hae inconsistent variations of those headers. Two cases: 1) Reply-To munging off: -- Users can fully control post disposition, which may not involve the list at all, or may be the list (thus preventing simple private replies). They can control whether simple replies go to the list, don't go to the list, go only to the list, etc. 2) Reply-To munging on: -- With Reply-To removal: All replies go back to the list ONLY. There is no way for simple replies to go anywhere else. -- With Reply-To extension: All posts go back to the list and may ALSO go an address the previous poster specified. In both cases simple replies are guaranteed to go the list. I'm of the general mind that the two cases (munging on and off) need separate handling. >> What you seem to be asking for is reply-to stripping for lists >> that don't munge reply-to. I can see the reasoning, but also see >> considerable danger/pain in that direction. > Exactly. And I don't see danger/pain, I see consistency of > operations. <nod> The pain bits are the standard/good uses of Reply-To as a dupe prevention technique, use as an address re-writing, use for thread redirection, etc. Depending on your lists and their demographics, these are variously useful/useless. However, conflating the problems on non-reply-to munging lists and the problems of reply-to munging lists seems a mistake. They are distinct problems with different problems related to feature/header overloading. I see value in two options for NON-reply-to munging lists: 1) Strip all poster-set Reply-To headers. 2) Strip all poster-set Reply-To headers which point at the list. I don't think I'd use them, but then my lists have very different public to your lists Chuq. > Which, I guess, makes me the hobgoblin of small mindedness..... Hardly. You're arguing for simplicity and transparency of interface for the end-user, and we all well know, end-users are hob goblins. I'm hardly going to argue with that. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
by J C Lawrence Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:31:26 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(a)plaidworks.com> wrote: > On 10/19/01 4:04 PM, "J C Lawrence" <claw(a)2wire.com> wrote: >> By doing reply-to extension we're changing practice as follows: >> -- Posters can _add_ to a posts disposition list via Reply-To. >> -- Posters can attempt to move threads to a different forum. > Which, IMHO, should be done via a To: or CC:, with a paragraph in > the message saying "we should move this to foobar. Please reply > only to that list after this". Reply-to can't replace that form, > IMHO, but might help to enforce it (or maybe not. To try without > explanation is a covert operation, not one I'm overly enthused to > encourage, and if they DO do it this way, reply-to coercion is > optional at best. I agree, except that as a moderator who regularly moves threads about, having the abilty to coerce, or minimally force initiation of the thread move as a Good and Useful Thing. >> -- Under reply-to extension the original poster who sets reply-to >> has the ability to expose an additional address to all subsequent >> thread posts. This can be abused, but can also be a Very Good >> Thing as it allows, for instance, a non-list-member to track and >> aprticipate in a specific thread. > Agreed, but I consider this at best a niche feature/sitaution, and > don't feel any real need/interest to support it. True, but its a pleasant windfall even if minor. >> This centers on the old debate: > Yes, I know. Which is why I figure we won't solve it this time, > either... (tee hee) <bows to the worthy opponent> >>> How is the typical user to understand how this all works >>> together, and why when they reply to a list, this happens, >>> except when it's fred's message? >> The arbitrary user is not affected. He replies exactly as per >> normal and, as far as his perception is concerned, it Just Works. > Does it? Yup. > What about the case where a list is not coerced reply-to, but one > fo the subscribers feels it should be, so he coerces reply-to > covertly, which is propogated out and through the list. Which is actually orthogonal to the case under discussion and is thus a red herring. You're asking: What should happen, MLM wise, to a post to a non reply-to munging list when a poster sets Reply-To to something else. That's very different to what is under discussion; How should reply-to munging should be done for lists which coerce reply-to, if a poster sets Reply-To on a posts. > The list now operates differently for postings by that one > user. And the typical user won't know why, or even necessarily > recognize it until they reply privately to that message, and due > to the covert reply-to, sees their message splashed all over the > list. Right. That only affects lists which don't munge reply-to. It explicitly doesn't affect lists which do munge reply-to. What you seem to be asking for is reply-to stripping for lists that don't munge reply-to. I can see the reasoning, but also see considerable danger/pain in that direction. > Which, IMHO, I've seen happen, with truly explosive results, a few > times. It can be, frankly, even more destructive than the bubba > hack, especially if one of your users gets into a nasty fight with > someone, and then starts throwing covert reply-tos at the person > to embarrass him in public. Or, as has happened in one case, got > an engineer into a private discussion, and then threw in a covert > reply-to that forced an untimely message back onto a list, which > caused an NDA leak, which caused untold embarassment. <nods> Right. A problem of posters to non-reply-to munging lists having full control over post disposition, and thus the ability to massively change post disposition for their posts outside the norm. BUT, for lists which reply to munge, adding reply to exension allows posters to extend post distribution outside of the list, but does not allow them (directly) to change the base assumed pattern of post disposition for a list post. > If you allow users to override list options, all sorts of mischief > can happen. And will. Right. Please note that that is not being discussed or proposed. What is being proposed is the ability for users to EXTEND list options as regards post disposition, but ONLY for lists which munge reply to. What to do about disposition overrides for lists that don't munge reply to is ratehr another matter, and one I don't know has an easy answer. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
by J C Lawrence Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:32:44 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(a)plaidworks.com> wrote: > On 10/19/01 3:21 PM, "J C Lawrence" <claw(a)2wire.com> wrote: >> Note: This does expose an abuse vector: >> >> I don't like Bubba. >> >> I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba. > Aka the "set your followup to /dev/null" on usenet hack. > I'm of the opinion, and I don't expect to be in the majority, that > "reply-to" should not transport through a mail list. Either the > mail list replaces it with a list-centric one, or it deletes it. There are three base reasons people set Reply-To: 1) They're rewriting their From: header. 2) They're attempting to move a thread to another forum. 3) They're attempting to kill CC'ed posts to themselves by setting Reply-To to the list they're posting to. I've already addressed the (fourth) abuse vector. Taking the three in order: #1 is not fundamentally affected by the change except that they now starg getting CC's. For reasons not dissimilar to Chuq's I don't have much sympathy for this. #2 Will work, partially. With reply-to replacement replies would never see the other forum. With reply-to extension they'll see both the other forum and the list list. #3 Won't change at all as they'll get dupe collapsed > The real answer are aliases attached to a subscripiton) Agreed. Different problem tho. > My argument is that when I send mail to the list, the list > processes it and then sends out a new message that my message is > the basis of it. The debate then is how much influence a poster should have over the disposition of such a message. Specifically, given that a poster to a non-reply-to list can entirely control the disposition via reply-to, how should those abilities be curtailed for a reply-to list? By doing reply-to extension we're changing practice as follows: -- Posters can _add_ to a posts disposition list via Reply-To. This is different from non-reply-to lists where posters can entirely replace and define disposition via reply-to. -- Posters can attempt to move threads to a different forum. Essentially they can create crossposted threads via reply-to. Unlike non-reply-to setting lists they can't make a thread leave a list, they can only add another disposition. Unlike reply-to replacement, you _CAN_ now have a crossposted thread. -- Under reply-to extension the original poster who sets reply-to has the ability to expose an additional address to all subsequent thread posts. This can be abused, but can also be a Very Good Thing as it allows, for instance, a non-list-member to track and aprticipate in a specific thread. Under reply-to replacement you'd have to be a member of the list to follow the thread (thus all the requests of, "Please CC me I'm not on the list"). > At that point, the original reply-to is no longer valid, it's what > the list software says should happen that matters. As the > bubba-hack shows, to NOT do this opens up lists to abuse in > not-necessarily-obvious ways, and worse, you leave things in > ambiguous states, depending on factors most users don't > understand. Lists act differently based on whether it reply-to > coerces and whether the original poster coerces reply-to... This centers on the old debate: Is a list message an entirely new message or is it a continuation/version of the message which was sent to the list? I tend to the latter version. Yes, the Bubba hack extends an abuse which exists for non reply-to munging lists to reply-to munging lists. > ... and you have the issue of which coerced reply-to 'wins'. Given RFC conformant MUAs this isn't a problem -- they all win. Here it appears that Pine might not be conformant. MH and NMH are just fine. JRA is testing out Mutt. I assume someone with access to Outlook will check that (I don't have access). > How is the typical user to understand how this all works together, > and why when they reply to a list, this happens, except when it's > fred's message? The arbitrary user is not affected. He replies exactly as per normal and, as far as his perception is concerned, it Just Works. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

2 1

Re: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
by bob＠nleaudio.com Oct. 20, 2001

Oct. 20, 2001

Chuq, I totally agree. I had to "solve" a problem on one of my lists that ended up being a fairly prolific poster had his "Reply-to" set to his own address. The list was set so that replies went to the list, but any reply to his messages on the list did not, due to his "reply-to" being set. IMHO, if you want replies to go to the list, they should ALWAYS go to the list. If they go to the user, then Reply-to could be acceptable to pass on, I suppose. Bob >It seems from a consistency's sake, the MLM ought to handle this stuff >unambiguously, which means ONLY mailman's reply-to (or lack of it) ought be >be propogated. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mailman-Developers mailing list >Mailman-Developers(a)python.org >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers >

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman and cookies.
by J C Lawrence Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:16:23 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(a)plaidworks.com> wrote: >> 1) upgrade Python to 2.1.1 and Mailman to 2.0.6. 2) apply the >> patch suggested above and see if the crashes go away. > Thanks. Ahead of the game again, I see. I'm a little more interested in whether the core happens with an unpatched Python 2.1.1... -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
by J C Lawrence Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:21:55 -0400 Jay R Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:48:29PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: >> BTW: Do Mutt et al correctly handle multi-address Reply-To? > Unknown. I'll have to try it. FWVLIW nmh/exmh do The Right Thing. Pine didn't seem to. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

1 0