* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings [not found] ` <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> @ 2009-03-04 11:59 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-04 12:30 ` Owen Rees 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2009-03-04 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pmcferrin; +Cc: The Vulgar and Non-RFC-Compliant Cygwin-Talk List [ This is completely off-topic, so moved to the proper list. ] Paul McFerrin wrote: > Dave: > > I examined your email headers and discovered that in your postings to > cygwin ARGH DO NOT POST EMAIL ADDRESSES TO THE LIST cygwin.com, you are > setting "Return-Path: <dave.korn.cygwin PCYMTNQREAIYR googlemail.com>" in > your email header so naturally everyone who is "replying" to sender will be > sending YOU their reply, not cygwin ARGH cygwin.com. This could explain why you > are getting so much direct replies. That's not actually what's happening. Here is the raw text of my most recent list posting at sourceware: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADFA41.4050308%40gmail.com As you can see there is no such header. Here are a few others; likewise. http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADE7FF.80005%40gmail.com http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADE7DC.6030205%40gmail.com http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADBA0D.6040405%40gmail.com http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49AD9861.7050601%40gmail.com Notice how the Return-Path in all of these posts is a munged version of the list subscriber name, as should be the case in all posts sent out by the sourceware mailing lists; that way, if mail bounces, it is returned to the list daemon, which can find out which list subscriber is bouncing and stop sending messages if they carry on bouncing them for too long. Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is broken and does not comply with internet standards. The Return-Path is for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. Also, here is a screenshot of my email settings, where I do not have any Reply-To header set: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3118/mysettings.png You'll just have to take my word for it that I haven't changed them since you suggested this, although the historical record of my posts in the archive backs me up on this. Here also are the headers of one of the posts in my local sent items folder (modulo obvious anti-spam munging) From - Tue Mar 03 23:15:26 2009 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000 X-Mozilla-Keys: Message-ID: <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:15:25 +0000 From: Dave Korn <dave SPOT korn SPOT cygwin SPLAT gmail SPOT com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Subject: Re: concurrent use of cygwin1.dll for 1.5 & 1.7 ?? References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit corresponding to the message mentioned previously at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADBA0D.6040405%40gmail.com Note that it also has no return-path header. Also, to see how the email headers look when they're received downstream from sourceware, I went to gmane to look for the same post there. Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Korn <dave SPOT korn SPOT cygwin SPLAT googlemail SPOT com> Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin Subject: Re: concurrent use of cygwin1.dll for 1.5 & 1.7 ?? Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:15:25 +0000 Lines: 17 Approved: news SPLAT gmane SPOT org Message-ID: <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1236121596 6607 80.91.229.12 (3 Mar 2009 23:06:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet SPLAT ger SPOT gmane SPOT org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:06:36 +0000 (UTC) To: cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Original-X-From: cygwin-return-148486-goc-cygwin=m SPOT gmane SPOT org SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Wed Mar 04 00:07:52 2009 Return-path: <cygwin-return-148486-goc-cygwin=m SPOT gmane SPOT org SPLAT cygwin SPOT com> Envelope-to: goc-cygwin SPLAT gmane SPOT org Original-Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LediC-0006oG-50 for goc-cygwin SPLAT gmane SPOT org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:07:44 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 15139 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2009 23:06:14 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 15131 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2009 23:06:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Original-Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:06:07 +0000 Original-Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 26so497818eyw.20 for <cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com>; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.210.117.1 with SMTP id p1mr1670744ebc.9.1236121564306; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k9sm10716748nfh.62.2009.03.03.15.06.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) In-Reply-To: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help SPLAT cygwin SPOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-goc-cygwin=m SPOT gmane SPOT org SPLAT cygwin.com> List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe SPLAT cygwin SPOT com> List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> List-Post: <mailto:cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com> List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help SPLAT cygwin SPOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> Original-Sender: cygwin-owner SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.os.cygwin:104617 Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin/104617> As before, you can see that the return path is the proper bounce address for auto-unsubscribing, and the Mail-Followup-To points to the list. So, I trust there is no doubt that at least one of us knows how to drive a mailer. However, I'm willing to take your word for it that you have experienced some kind of confusion or misunderstanding at your end through no malicious intent of your own. It strikes me that you could be the innocent victim of a buggy mail server at your ISP. (Come to think of it, this is RR we're talking about; it would be a surprise if you /weren't/ suffering from lousy servers at your ISP....) You were unlucky to be the 'n'th person in a row to mail me and be there at just the point when I lost patience, but I don't suppose they all have faulty ISP mailservers. The text in RFC5321 that defines the Return-Path header is as follows: When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail data. This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support it. The return-path line preserves the information in the <reverse- path> from the MAIL command. Here, final delivery means the message has left the SMTP environment. Normally, this would mean it had been delivered to the destination user or an associated mail drop, but in some cases it may be further processed and transmitted by another mail system. (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321) What this implies is that the bogus Return-Path header must have been generated at your ISP mailserver, and I can guess what it's doing wrong: it's using the address in the From: line in the email (rfc822) headers, rather than the address in the "MAIL FROM" command when it receives the email from sourceware.org, which sourceware.org will be presenting as the munged version containing the subscribed user's address. So, I see that you are the victim of an unfortunate accident, although I maintain that sending me the same request twice five minutes apart was a bit pushy. I've unblocked your address; please remember that, through no fault of your own, you'll have to take more care in future. cheers, DaveK ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-04 11:59 ` Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings Dave Korn @ 2009-03-04 12:30 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-04 16:30 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Owen Rees @ 2009-03-04 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:07:31 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing > at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is > broken and does not comply with internet standards. The Return-Path is > for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. Can you give a link to the relevant internet standard please. I could not find it in RFC5322 (nor in RFC2822 which it obsoletes (nor in RFC0822 which it obsoletes)). RFC2369 which defines mailing list command specification header fields also says nothing about that field. As far as I can tell, the standards define Reply-To and Return-Path but not Mail-Followup-To. -- Owen Rees ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-04 12:30 ` Owen Rees @ 2009-03-04 16:30 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-04 16:45 ` Christopher Faylor 2009-03-04 17:04 ` Owen Rees 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2009-03-04 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Owen Rees wrote: > --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:07:31 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > >> Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing >> at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is >> broken and does not comply with internet standards. The Return-Path is >> for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. > > Can you give a link to the relevant internet standard please. I could > not find it in RFC5322 (nor in RFC2822 which it obsoletes (nor in > RFC0822 which it obsoletes)). RFC2369 which defines mailing list command > specification header fields also says nothing about that field. > > As far as I can tell, the standards define Reply-To and Return-Path but > not Mail-Followup-To. Yes, you're right. Looking at the history, it's never made it to the status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually one stage more advanced than an RFC): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt and there are some more details at: http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html So it's only a de-facto standard. Any mailer which doesn't want to implement it is free to do so, but it is still incorrect if it uses Return-Path for replies. cheers, DaveK ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-04 16:30 ` Dave Korn @ 2009-03-04 16:45 ` Christopher Faylor 2009-03-04 17:04 ` Owen Rees 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2009-03-04 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:39:41PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote: >Any mailer ... is still incorrect if it uses Return-Path for replies. FWIW, I think I'd notice if mail clients were using Return-Path. I'd see it in the sourceware log and, if it is occurring, it is not occurring with enough regularity for me to notice it. People misuing the "Sender:" field, OTOH, happens almost daily. It results in people sending email to gcc and gcc-owner. The end result of that is a little self-contained discussion amongst all of the people cc'ed since I don't allow email cc'ed to *-owner to make it to a mailing list. At one point that was a sign of spam. Nowadays it just is a sign of a misconfigured mail client intent on spamming postmaster. cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-04 16:30 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-04 16:45 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2009-03-04 17:04 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-04 18:16 ` Dave Korn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Owen Rees @ 2009-03-04 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > Yes, you're right. Looking at the history, it's never made it to the > status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually > one stage more advanced than an RFC): > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup- > to-00.txt > To quote RFC2026: 2.2 Internet-Drafts During the development of a specification, draft versions of the document are made available for informal review and comment by placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating the process of review and revision. An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time. ******************************************************** * * * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * * with an Internet-Draft. * * * ******************************************************** That, and the rest of RFC2026 makes it clear that a "internet draft" has lower status than an RFC - it is typically a proposal that may eventually turn into an RFC. On the subject of expiry: draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Expires: May 1998 It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned. -- Owen Rees; speaking personally, and not on behalf of HP. ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-04 17:04 ` Owen Rees @ 2009-03-04 18:16 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-05 10:57 ` Owen Rees 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2009-03-04 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Draft and Nonstandardised Cygwin-Talk List Owen Rees wrote: > --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > >> Yes, you're right. Looking at the history, it's never made it to the >> status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually >> one stage more advanced than an RFC): >> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup- >> to-00.txt > To quote RFC2026: > > 2.2 Internet-Drafts > That, and the rest of RFC2026 makes it clear that a "internet draft" has > lower status than an RFC - it is typically a proposal that may > eventually turn into an RFC. Oh, I remembered the order of progression wrong, I thought it was RFC->draft->STD. > On the subject of expiry: > > draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt > Expires: May 1998 > > It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates > the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned. True, but that's not the whole story; the IETF standards process has always been a lagged and idealised version of reality. Still, I will reword my earlier paragraph: > Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing > at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply > does not comply with common internet practice, but if it resorts to using > the Return-Path header, it is completely incorrect. The Return-Path is > for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. cheers, DaveK ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-04 18:16 ` Dave Korn @ 2009-03-05 10:57 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-05 13:18 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Owen Rees @ 2009-03-05 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 18:25:22 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: >> draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt >> Expires: May 1998 >> >> It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates >> the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned. > > True, but that's not the whole story; the IETF standards process has > always been a lagged and idealised version of reality. <http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/ietf-spring98-notes.html> contains an interesting note about Mail-Followup-To. It seems to have been one of a number of things considered by an IETF working group but with no agreement reached and the issue deferred to a later working group. It seems that the proposal was not revived in a later working group. If the proposal had been revived I would have expected it to appear in RFC5322 (October 2008) or for there to be something to indicate that it had been discussed. A later internet draft <http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mailing-list-behaviour.txt> (Expired May 2003!) seems to be suggesting that the List-Post header defined in the Standards Track RFC2369 be used. The messages I get from various cygwin lists include the RFC2369 headers. All that would be needed to make this work would be to update all mail clients to notice RFC2369 headers and offer an explicit "Reply to list" option. While doing that, perhaps we can update all mail clients to include an "Unsubscribe" button that appears whenever the user is viewing a message with the relevant RFC2369 header. > Still, I will > reword my earlier paragraph: > >> Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing >> at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply >> does not comply with common internet practice, but if it resorts to using >> the Return-Path header, it is completely incorrect. The Return-Path is >> for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. I am not convinced that Mail-Followup-To is common practice. Do most mailing lists insert it? cygwin apparently does but cygwin-talk does not nor do any of the other mailing lists to which I subscribe. Do the most widely used clients and webmail services support it? Even if is is supported, the expired internet draft suggests that it is used to deal with "reply to all" which I would consider to be encouraging people to use a button that causes more problems than it solves and which ought to be abolished. The I-D appears to be suggesting that "Reply" be interpreted as "Reply to author" and it should use the Reply-to if it exists and From if not. It is certainly true that using Return-Path for replies is wrong but there are very few circumstances under which it is used at all. The return-path line preserves the reverse-path information from the SMTP envelope; it is the envelope reverse-path that is used to report errors, the return-path line usually does not exist at the point where delivery errors are detected. -- Owen Rees; speaking personally, and not on behalf of HP. ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-05 10:57 ` Owen Rees @ 2009-03-05 13:18 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-05 15:56 ` Owen Rees 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2009-03-05 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Obscure and Esoteric Cygwin-Talk List Owen Rees wrote: > All that would be needed to make this work would be to update all mail > clients <g> That's probably the oldest meme on the internet. "All we need do to make X work is update every Y in the world". > I am not convinced that Mail-Followup-To is common practice. Do most > mailing lists insert it? cygwin apparently does but cygwin-talk does not > nor do any of the other mailing lists to which I subscribe. Do the most > widely used clients and webmail services support it? It's a client header, so the question is not whether other lists insert it or not, but how well supported it is by common mail clients. There's a list at DJB's page (many years out of date) that mentions qmail, mutt, Gnus, Kmail and SquirrelMail, and I spent five minutes googling and discovered that since then it has also become supported by packages such as emacs and Thunderbird. So it's reasonable to say that it has a fair degree of adoption. This is how the internet has always worked: someone proposes an idea, some other people support it in software, everyone tries it out and if it works good it gets widely-adopted. The whole standardisation process is very much an after-the-fact matter of documenting what the de facto standards are and providing a gold-standard for interoperability so that any little misaligned wrinkles between the various implementations can be ironed out. > It is certainly true that using Return-Path for replies is wrong but > there are very few circumstances under which it is used at all. The > return-path line preserves the reverse-path information from the SMTP > envelope; it is the envelope reverse-path that is used to report errors, > the return-path line usually does not exist at the point where delivery > errors are detected. The most widespread use is in NDRs, which add "Return-Path: <>" so that you don't get bounces, loops and explosions of NDRs for NDRs for NDRs and so on. cheers, DaveK ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-05 13:18 ` Dave Korn @ 2009-03-05 15:56 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-05 18:32 ` Morgan Gangwere 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Owen Rees @ 2009-03-05 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List --On Thursday, March 05, 2009 13:27:56 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > This is how the internet has always worked: someone proposes an idea, > some other people support it in software, everyone tries it out and if it > works good it gets widely-adopted. The whole standardisation process is > very much an after-the-fact matter of documenting what the de facto > standards are and providing a gold-standard for interoperability so that > any little misaligned wrinkles between the various implementations can be > ironed out. If the idea had been proposed this century... > The most widespread use is in NDRs, which add "Return-Path: <>" so that > you don't get bounces, loops and explosions of NDRs for NDRs for NDRs and > so on. The Return-Path header would be used only if a message is being relayed via some non-SMTP mail transport that understands internet message headers and an error occurs in that non-SMTP environment. In transit via SMTP messages SHOULD NOT contain a Return-Path header. The reverse path is carried in the SMTP envelope and delivery errors are reported using the SMTP envelope addresses. -- Owen Rees; speaking personally, and not on behalf of HP. ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings 2009-03-05 15:56 ` Owen Rees @ 2009-03-05 18:32 ` Morgan Gangwere 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Morgan Gangwere @ 2009-03-05 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: More reasons we're all going to be laced with cyanide and our dead bodies used as nuclear fuel. ... and why did this not get picked up by my "list-id:*@cygwin.*" filter? there's no "reasonable" way to tell where the message is going/coming from. Several MUAs i've seen have done a "Lets Assume On Behalf Means We Send It To Random Addresses" -- such as Gmail at times and Mutt. Apparently, some MUAs take "on-behalf-of" indications as "send it to the represented person" and not "send it to who sent it to me" But That Might Just Be Me. -- Morgan gangwere "Space does not reflect society, it expresses it." -- Castells, M., Space of Flows, Space of Places: Materials for a Theory of Urbanism in the Information Age, in The Cybercities Reader, S. Graham, Editor. 2004, Routledge: London. p. 82-93. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-03-05 18:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> [not found] ` <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> [not found] ` <49ADEF5E.3060804@columbus.rr.com> [not found] ` <49ADF5B5.5000102@gmail.com> [not found] ` <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> 2009-03-04 11:59 ` Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings Dave Korn 2009-03-04 12:30 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-04 16:30 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-04 16:45 ` Christopher Faylor 2009-03-04 17:04 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-04 18:16 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-05 10:57 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-05 13:18 ` Dave Korn 2009-03-05 15:56 ` Owen Rees 2009-03-05 18:32 ` Morgan Gangwere
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).