Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet.robotics and the Robotics List
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:04:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
886 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <36794b80.31897794@lugnet.com>...
> Would that be better?
I'd have to experiment and see what happens if a user does a reply to all in
that case. If it sends to the people in the Reply-To header as well as the
To header then it would work fine.
> Note that if Reply-To isn't set, the default action will be to reply to
> lugnet.robotics@lugnet.com, which is worse than explicitly setting the • reply
> to go to lego-robotics@crynwr.com for people subscribing via lego-robotics.
>
> Also note that the From field has to be munged so that it shows the message
> as coming from lugnet.robotics@lugnet.com with the user's name in SMTP
> header comments (parens), otherwise the lego-robotics listserver will • reject
> messages from people it doesn't recognize.
I didn't realize that crynwr did this, but it makes sense. As an
alternative (and I know that this is somewhat out of your control) it seems
to me that it would make sense for the mailing list software running on
crynwr.com to allow messages in if the Sender: header is a known address,
even if the From: address isn't. Then lugnet could put Sender:
lugnet.robotics@lugnet.com and leave the From alone. This would most
directly reflect what is in the message too... the message is really from a
user, and being sent by lugnet. Sender is a standard header in some updated
version of RFC822 (well, most likely another RFC which adds Sender to the
list of standard headers). Older software would generally call it X-Sender.
I don't see this as a larger spam hole for the lego-robotics list, because a
dedicated spammer could spam the list now by forging a valid From line
(basically doing exactly what you do on lugnet).
> The reason the Reply-To field is ever set at all is because the • news-by-mail
> gateways which convert news to mail and vice versa have been carefully set
> up to mimic newsgroup interactions as closely as possible -- meaning that
> the NNTP Followup-To header is maps to the SMTP Reply-To header.
I see this as being true when Followup-To is set, but in general it isn't.
If it were set it seems like you'd want the Reply-To to send the message
back to lugnet (as shown in the example below that I have deleted to save
space).
alex
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lugnet.robotics and the Robotics List
|
| (...) Hmm, perhaps in the case of gatewayed messages going out (i.e., gatewayed out of the lugnet.robotics newsgroup into the lego-robotics mailing list, or out of the lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf newsgroup into the ba-lego mailing list), the Reply-To field (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
