OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)

Dave Sherohman esper at
Wed Oct 30 20:17:37 CET 2002

Forgive me if I'm a little behind on the issues, but this is
something I didn't notice until the huge thread erupted...

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:33  AM, John Buttery wrote:
> >  "Lie" is kinda an interesting way to put it, but I think we all know
> >what he means.  How can you say that readdressing a mail (which is what
> >you're doing here) isn't a "lie" the way he's referring to it?  It's in
> >plain black and white.
> we aren't re-addressing. We're standardizing the way the existing 
> addresses are presented.

I am sending this message with the header

To: Mailman mailing list management users <mailman-users at>

If it arrives with a different address (such as "To:  Your Name
<you at>"), then it has been re-addressed.  This is not
standardizing the way the existing addresses are presented because
"Your Name <you at>" is not an existing address.

> >  Well, OK then, how would you differentiate this new behaviour from a
> >hypothetical message I might have sent pre-upgrade that _did_ have your
> >address in the To: and the list in the CC:?  Hint: you can't.
> sure I can. If it went through the list server, it has a List-ID 
> attached. So it's clear which one came from where.

That just tells you whether that specific copy came in via the list.
It does not tell you whether a second copy was sent to you directly.
To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To:

> filtering list mail based on to/cc is a flawed approach. to argue that 
> we can't break what's broken by definition is a flawed argument. IMHO.

If the filtering on to/cc is being done solely for the sake of
determining whether a copy of the message was sent directly to you
personally (and not to determine whether the message was received via
a mailing list, why is this flawed?

> I guess I'm arguing that it's the end of the days of "bulk" mail, and 
> the beginning of the days of "mass" mail. There are significant 
> semantical differences and advantages.

Such as?

> To use paper-mail analogies, 
> it's time to move from sending out everything to "Resident", and start 
> adding enough intelligence to the system so that it actually shows up 
> with your name on it.

Sending paper mail to <current resident's name> instead of to
"resident" is a cheap trick used by bulk mail houses to convince
people that they're receiving personalized mail instead of form
letters.  Faking the To: header is no different.  The mail isn't
being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.

(And, yes, it also annoys me to receive paper mail which starts off
with "Dear David," but is obviously a form letter.)

When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists
have already won. - reverius

Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list