Now now, Lyris is actually very good. There are some very good reasons
for some of the wierdnesses, but, alternate implementations are
required in some cases. Even the venerable LISTSERV has done blatantly
anti-social things during its evolution.
} - - Message-ID's are getting munged illegally. The RHS of the message-id
} is _my_ domain, not yours!
He is going to mung the LHS, not the RHS.
} Keep your grubby hands off! Despite
} what other mail systems do, rewriting different messages for each sender
} is _wrong_. I can understand the qmail-like argument of delivery
} speed, but here are other ways to make it easy for the user to unsubscribe.
The issue here isn't unsubscribe per-se, but rather handling bounces.
I think it's Delphi that won't give you _any_ identifying information in
a bounce other than message-id. Other mailers are similarly stupid.
Handling bounces is a severe problem for many list maintainers.
Another severe problem is that some mailers will ignore subsequent
messages with the same message-id (treating them like RFC1036
Message-IDs) or coalescing the recipient lists for a single copy
(which breaks any per-recipient stuff).
I prefer not pander to such broken crap, but, when you get a few
hundred bounces from delphi, whaddya do? [Some list admins refuse
subscriptions from places like that.]
} - - Reply-To: is set to the list, making personal replies impossible for
} many people without manual intervention. Get rid of Reply-To: and
} use Mail-Followup-To:. It's not an official standard (yet) but at
} least it's a correct solution.
Reply-to: <list> is a very contentious issue. I personally think it should
remain this way, because replying to the list, without sending an extra
copy to the originator and pissing them off requires manual intervention.
At work, we'd consider reply-to: list to be critical in a project-related
list.
It's parameterizable in this version of Lyris anyways.
Mail-Followup-To: is in competition with another non-standard header which
I can't remember at the moment. More Vapor-standards...
} - - The silly Subject prefix [list-maintainers] appears to have been axed,
} thankfully. Don't bring us all down just because people have crippled
} software that can't filter except only on things like "From", "To",
} and "Subject".
Few people would have objected if this was a just-starting-up mailing
list.
} - - It looks like the silly footer was axed too.
I liked it... Don't hit me! ;-)
If only for the amusement value about everybody seeing something different ;-)
} - - Don't _even_ get me started at the patently illegal and utterly anti-social
} "let's substitute anything that looks like an email address in square
} brackets" mess! God, are the people who make this thing have any stuff
} between their ears?
} I'm also PGP signing this message as a test too see if will even pass
} messages relatively cleanly.
Don't get me started about how unclean PGP is. Breaks RFC1137 digests,
most newsreader undigestifiers, and common-practice FAQ format amongst
other things.
Does your mailer insert ">" in front of /^From / too? ;-)
Grumble, mutter....
-- Chris Lewis, CyberSheriff (CBC says I am, so it must be true!)For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved