From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 28 2000 - 04:27:22 CDT
In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009271041350.15973-100000@spock.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
> 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
> MUST/SHOULD/Ought to issue a warning to the user and ask for
> confirmation.
>No! The poster has specifically stated that email replies are not wanted.
>The recipient of the email has the right to control his own mailbox, it is
>not the sender's right to override the explicit instructions of the
>poster.
>The followup agent MUST NOT email .... Period.
Recipients may have rights, but so do posters. An RFC is no place to
forbid a poster from sending an article or message wherever he wishes. No
matter of interoperability can possibly arise. If some conduct is
considered undesirable for social reasons, then the most you can do is
severe discouragement by emphatic use of "Ought" (or maybe SHOULD in
extreme cases).
Moreover, I dislike controlling the behaviour of user agents too tightly
in this draft, though I think we are agreed that we want to be as firm as
we dare on this one.
So I reckon that we cannot prevent the user from overriding, but we can
SHOULD/Ought that he receives a warning first. My present inclination is
"Ought", because it might be a bit difficult to implement.
>Posted-and-Mailed ...
>This header MUST be present in any copy that is both posted and mailed.
>It should not be optional.
Again, possibly difficult to implement, and hardly non-interoperable.
-- 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: +44 161 437 4506 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