From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 15:46:01 CST
Here is the latest draft of Mail-Copies-To, incorporating the wordings
suggested by Forrest J. Cavalier.
There still remain some disagreements concerning MUST/SHOULD/MAY/Ought in
various places, so I must resort to Straw Poll again :-( . Voting closes
Midnight Friday California time.
I have offered all 5 possibilities in each case, though there are probably
only 2 or 3 serious contenders for each one. There have been public
disagreements on all of there. The underlined one is what is in the
attached draft. Please indicate a 1st and 2nd choice (the 1st is what you
really want, the 2nd shows the direction in which you would prefer to
budge if your are outvoted).
Q1. To automatically email a copy when MCT is 'nobody'
MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT, MAY NOT, Ought Not, omit
--------
1st choice [ ] 2nd choice [ ]
Q2. To issue a warning if user overrides MCT 'nobody'
MUST, SHOULD, MAY, Ought, omit
-----
1st choice [ ] 2nd choice [ ]
Q3. To automatically email a copy when MCT is 'poster' or mailbox
MUST, SHOULD, MAY, Ought, omit
------
1st choice [ ] 2nd choice [ ]
Q4. To automatically email a copy when MCT is absent
MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT, MAY NOT, Ought Not, omit
---------
1st choice [ ] 2nd choice [ ]
Q5. To include a P&M header when a copy is mailed
MUST, SHOULD, MAY, Ought, omit
------
1st choice [ ] 2nd choice [ ]
Note that P&M in the Body is covered by a NOTE, since this seemed to be
the consensus, and acceptable to most people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Optional Headers
6.1. Mail-Copies-To
The Mail-Copies-To header indicates whether or not the poster wishes
to have followups to an article emailed in addition to being posted
to Netnews and, if so, establishes the address to which they should
be sent.
The content syntax makes use of syntax defined in [MESSFOR], but
subject to the revised definition of local-part given in section 5.2.
Mail-Copies-To-content = copy-addr / "nobody" / "poster"
copy-addr = mailbox
The keyword "nobody" indicates that the author does not wish copies
of any followup postings to be emailed.
The keyword "poster" indicates that the author wishes a copy of any
followup postings to be emailed to him.
Otherwise, this header contains a copy-addr to which the author
wishes a copy of any followup postings to be sent.
NOTE: Some existing practice uses the keyword "never" in place
of "nobody" and "always" in place of "poster". These usages are
deprecated, but followup agents MAY observe them.
The automatic actions of a followup agent in the various cases
(subject to manual override by the user) are as follows:
nobody
The followup agent MUST NOT email such a copy, and Ought to issue
a warning and ask for confirmation if the user overrides.
poster
The followup agent SHOULD email a copy, which MUST then be sent to
the address in the Reply-To header, and in the absence of that to
the address(es) in the From header.
copy-addr
The followup agent SHOULD email a copy, which MUST then be sent to
the copy-addr.
In the absence of the Mail-Copies-To header, the common practice has
been NOT to send an email copy of followup postings, and followup
agents Ought to respect this practice.
[DISCUSSION
nobody
MUST NOT seems clear enough. I have put the Ought because this describes
behaviour which has no observable effect on the rest of Usenet
(therefore interoperability hardly arises). Opinions on this one ranged
all the way from MUST down to Ought, and even to omiting the sentence
entirely. I think Ought is a reasonable compromise in the circumstances.
poster
default
A few people wanted it stronger, but others argued that if the original
author really cared, he would have said so. So this just reduces to
present practice, more or less.]
NOTE: This header is only relevant for posted followups to
Netnews articles, and is to be ignored when sending pure email
replies to the author, which are handled as prescribed under the
Reply-To header (6.1). Whether or not this header will also
find similar usage for replies to messages sent to mailing lists
falls outside the scope of this standard.
When emailing a copy, the followup agent SHOULD also include a
"Posted-And Mailed: yes" header ().
[I think the SHOULD is reasonable. A couple of people wanted MUST.]
NOTE: In addition to the Posted-And-Mailed header, some followup
agents also include within the body a mention that the article
is both posted and mailed, for the benefit of reading agents
that do not normally show that header.
6.2. Posted-And-Mailed
Posted-And-Mailed-content = "yes" / "no"
This header, when used with the "yes" keyword, indicates that the
article has been both posted to the specified newgroups and emailed.
It SHOULD be used when replying to the author of an article to which
this one is a followup (see the Mail-Copies-To header in section) and
it MAY be used when any article is also mailed to a recipient(s)
identified in a To and/or Cc header that is also present. The "no"
keyword is included for the sake of completeness; it MAY be used to
indicate the opposite state, but is redundant insofar as it only
describes the default state when this header is absent.
This header, if present, MUST be included in both the posted and
emailed versions of the article. The Newsgroups header of the posted
article SHOULD be included in the email version as recommended in
section 5.5. All other headers defined in this standard (excluding
variant and local headers, but including specifically the Message-ID
header) MUST be identical in both the posted and mailed versions of
the article, and so MUST the body.
NOTE: This leaves open the question of whether a To or a Cc
header should appear in the posted version. Naturally, a Bcc
header should not appear, except in a form which indicates that
there are additional unspecified recipients.
[MESSFOR] P. Resnick, "Internet Message Format Standard", draft-
ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt, March 1998.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** /tmp/dW7aavc Mon Nov 6 21:44:01 2000
--- /tmp/foo Mon Nov 6 21:40:26 2000
***************
*** 3,16 ****
6.1. Mail-Copies-To
! The Mail-Copies-To header indicates whether or not followups to the
! article should be emailed to the poster in addition to being posted
! to Netnews and, if so, may provide an address to which they should be
! sent. The content syntax makes use of syntax defined in [MESSFOR],
! but subject to the revised definition of local-part given in section
! 5.2.
Mail-Copies-To-content = copy-addr / "nobody" / "poster"
copy-addr = mailbox
NOTE: Some existing practice uses the keyword "never" in place
of "nobody" and "always" in place of "poster". These usages are
--- 3,26 ----
6.1. Mail-Copies-To
! The Mail-Copies-To header indicates whether or not the poster wishes
! to have followups to an article emailed in addition to being posted
! to Netnews and, if so, establishes the address to which they should
! be sent.
+ The content syntax makes use of syntax defined in [MESSFOR], but
+ subject to the revised definition of local-part given in section 5.2.
+
Mail-Copies-To-content = copy-addr / "nobody" / "poster"
copy-addr = mailbox
+ The keyword "nobody" indicates that the author does not wish copies
+ of any followup postings to be emailed.
+
+ The keyword "poster" indicates that the author wishes a copy of any
+ followup postings to be emailed to him.
+
+ Otherwise, this header contains a copy-addr to which the author
+ wishes a copy of any followup postings to be sent.
+
NOTE: Some existing practice uses the keyword "never" in place
of "nobody" and "always" in place of "poster". These usages are
***************
*** 17,57 ****
deprecated, but followup agents MAY observe them.
! A followup agent MUST NOT (unless its user explicitly overrides it)
! email a copy of the followup article to the author of the original
! article if the Mail-Copies-To header contains the "nobody" keyword.
! If the user explicitly overrides this provision, the followup agent
! Ought to issue a warning to the user and ask for confirmation.
! [The first MUST NOT seems clear enough.
! I have put Ought in the 2nd sentance because this describes behaviour
! which has no observable effect on the rest of Usenet (therefore
! interoperability hardly arises). Opinions on this one ranged all the way
! from MUST down to Ought, and even to omiting the sentence entirely. I
! think Ought is a reasonable compromise in the circumstances.]
! A followup agent SHOULD (unless its user explicitly overrides it)
! email a copy of the followup article to the author of the original
! article if the Mail-Copies-To header contains a copy-addr or the
! "poster" keyword. The copy, if sent, MUST be sent to the address in
! the copy-addr, and in the absence of that to the address(es) in the
! Reply-To header, and in the absence of that to the address(es) in the
! From header. The followup agent SHOULD also include a "Posted-And
! Mailed: yes" header ().
! [I think the second SHOULD is reasonable. A couple of people wanted
! MUST.]
! NOTE: In addition to the Posted-And-Mailed header, it is
! sometimes considered useful to include a mention that the
! article is both posted and mailed within the body.
! [That is very weak, but is as strong as most people seem to want to go.
! Personally, I would leave it out altogether. Putting it in a note avoids
! arguments about where it goes if the article is a multipart.]
! If this header is absent, a followup agent Ought Not to email a copy
! of the followup article automatically (but this does not prevent the
! user doing so manually, of course).
! [This is the default case. A few people wanted it stronger, but others
! argued that if the original author really cared, he would have said so.
! So this just reduces to present practice, more or less.]
NOTE: This header is only relevant for posted followups to
Netnews articles, and is to be ignored when sending pure email
--- 27,63 ----
deprecated, but followup agents MAY observe them.
! The automatic actions of a followup agent in the various cases
! (subject to manual override by the user) are as follows:
! nobody
! The followup agent MUST NOT email such a copy, and Ought to issue
! a warning and ask for confirmation if the user overrides.
! poster
! The followup agent SHOULD email a copy, which MUST then be sent to
! the address in the Reply-To header, and in the absence of that to
! the address(es) in the From header.
! copy-addr
! The followup agent SHOULD email a copy, which MUST then be sent to
! the copy-addr.
+ In the absence of the Mail-Copies-To header, the common practice has
+ been NOT to send an email copy of followup postings, and followup
+ agents Ought to respect this practice.
+ [DISCUSSION
+ nobody
+ MUST NOT seems clear enough. I have put the Ought because this describes
+ behaviour which has no observable effect on the rest of Usenet
+ (therefore interoperability hardly arises). Opinions on this one ranged
+ all the way from MUST down to Ought, and even to omiting the sentence
+ entirely. I think Ought is a reasonable compromise in the circumstances.
+ poster
+
+ default
+ A few people wanted it stronger, but others argued that if the original
+ author really cared, he would have said so. So this just reduces to
+ present practice, more or less.]
+
NOTE: This header is only relevant for posted followups to
Netnews articles, and is to be ignored when sending pure email
***************
*** 59,64 ****
Reply-To header (6.1). Whether or not this header will also
find similar usage for replies to messages sent to mailing lists
! is not defined by this standard.
6.2. Posted-And-Mailed
--- 65,79 ----
Reply-To header (6.1). Whether or not this header will also
find similar usage for replies to messages sent to mailing lists
! falls outside the scope of this standard.
+ When emailing a copy, the followup agent SHOULD also include a
+ "Posted-And Mailed: yes" header ().
+ [I think the SHOULD is reasonable. A couple of people wanted MUST.]
+
+ NOTE: In addition to the Posted-And-Mailed header, some followup
+ agents also include within the body a mention that the article
+ is both posted and mailed, for the benefit of reading agents
+ that do not normally show that header.
+
6.2. Posted-And-Mailed
***************
*** 74,79 ****
indicate the opposite state, but is redundant insofar as it only
describes the default state when this header is absent.
- [The SHOULD matches a SHOULD in MCT, but usage in non-followup cases is
- just a MAY (if people think it is helpful, they can use it).]
This header, if present, MUST be included in both the posted and
--- 89,92 ----
***************
*** 84,92 ****
header) MUST be identical in both the posted and mailed versions of
the article, and so MUST the body.
- [But that allows the To header not to appear in the news version,
- because it is not a header defined in this standard. Is that right? Are
- there any other headers that could reasonably differ?]
[MESSFOR] P. Resnick, "Internet Message Format Standard", draft-
ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt, March 1998.
--- 97,107 ----
header) MUST be identical in both the posted and mailed versions of
the article, and so MUST the body.
+ NOTE: This leaves open the question of whether a To or a Cc
+ header should appear in the posted version. Naturally, a Bcc
+ header should not appear, except in a form which indicates that
+ there are additional unspecified recipients.
+
[MESSFOR] P. Resnick, "Internet Message Format Standard", draft-
ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt, March 1998.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5