From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Fri Sep 29 2000 - 17:36:57 CDT
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> Accordingly, I'd prefer to avoid any mention at all of what the software
> should do if the user explicitly overrode it, since at this point we're
> talking about user interface issues that seem rather outside the scope of
> the standard. Instead, I think we should state that if Mail-Copies-To is
> set to "never", this indicates that the poster never wants an e-mailed
> copy of followups and that a followup agent MUST NOT send such a copy. Is
> there any real need to say anything more than that, or even mention user
> overrides at all?
MUST NOT? Again, where is the interoperability problem?
If we have this funny header - which is a good waste of our time in
my opinion - there must be a mention of override.
> If people want to force a copy for some bizarre reason (and I can think of
> times where it may be necessary, although all my examples are within
> cooperating subnets), well, then they're not using a followup agent any
> more.
Bizarre? Joe Cool plays with his newsreader settings and happens to
set Mail-Copies-To to never and then forgets about it (he might even
be clicking a checkbox without noticing). Then he posts a question to
a technical group and says "pleaes mail me a copy, because our newsfeed
is flaky".
Not particularly bizarre reason for an overide, in my opinion.
> Similarly, for the case of no header, why not just say that if the
> Mail-Copies-To header is not present at all, the article should by default
> be treated as if it had "Mail-Copies-To: never"?
Pray tell, why? If you really make this move then you must really
mention user overrides.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se