linuxaudio.org

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 17:11 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:

quoted text
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:33:04AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:

> >

> >> No, it's the result of the settings of my account on the mailing list

> >> server - remove duplicate messages, which is the correct thing to do.

> >

> > OK, so you opt to receive only the copy that is sent directly to you

> > and not the one from the list. In that case you can't blame the list

> > if what you receive doesn't match your expectations - the copy you do

> > receive was never handled by it at all.

>

> But otherwise I get duplicates. This should not be a job for the client,

> to remove duplicates. It's the job of the mailing list to work in such a

> way that duplicates are not sent.

>

> It's not enough that the majority of all email traffic is spam, now

> we're adding to the problem.

Your objections are the same objections that have been hashed out years

ago, endlessly, in many many many different mailing lists and IETF

working groups. Marc-Olivier Barre, our list admin, provided URL's

linking to the two most widely accepted papers that provide, in great

detail, support for both your view and a counterpoint. Those papers

contain rebuttals and counter rebuttals. Nothing you can say at this

point in time will update the positions provided in those URLs at all,

because nothing about email technology has changed in any fundamental

way since they were written.
Most people here accept that both positions contain many good points,

and that any decision in favor of or against Reply-To munging is

fundamentally an arbitrary choice in favor what is currently perceived

as the lesser of two evils. 
Marc-Olivier raised the issue, didn't do a democratic poll but did seek

input, and finally made a decision. I, and I suspect many other people,

would greatly appreciate it if you could accept the decision and work

towards using the technology you have available to operate smoothly with

it, rather than reviving a decade or more old argument to which nothing

can be added. I am not endorsing (or decrying) the decision that was

made. But the decision was made, and the tools can be configured to deal

with it in ways that I think are fundamentally acceptable to everyone,

if not actually optimal for everyone.
thanks,

--p