Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508252241.SAA29090@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Fri, 25 Aug 1995 23:58:39 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: Getting back on track
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 24 Aug 1995 10:57:14 -0400 from moore@cs.utk.edu

On Thu, 24 Aug 1995 10:57:14 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said:

>We have the burden of making changes that users either aren't interested
>in or don't  understand. Users don't see any reasons  why they shouldn't
>send 8-bit text mail, unencoded, without a charset label (after all,
>*everybody* uses iso 8859/1). Users don't understand why you can't reply
>to their messages  when their return address  is joeuser@flathost. Users
>don't  understand why  their mailer  shouldn't be  bouncing mail  to the
>header From address.

I'm sorry,  but I simply  don't see how generating  a FQDN for  the reply
address, or adding a tag that says  "by the way, this is 8859-1" is going
to do any damage or remove  any functionality the users had before. These
are compatible changes  - technical details the users  couldn't care less
about.

>Actually, I can think of several uses of protocols on the Internet which
>were  quite  prevalent for  years,  but  which  are now  being  actively
>discouraged as the  Internet runs into scaling problems. So  I don't buy
>this argument either.

I'm afraid I don't buy your  rebuke either. First, the Internet's scaling
problems have the  potential to disrupt the service in  a pretty big way,
and as I said in one of my  last messages, this is about the only case in
which I  would accept to break  something that has been  in continued use
for  9  years.  Second,  it's not  like  alternatives  weren't  provided.
Besides, it's mostly routing stuff. The "users" were technical people who
run routers and  weren't keeping their house clean, didn't  want to learn
about BGP, you name  it. The disruption to the real  *users* was a change
in  IP address.  Having just  gone through  one myself,  I know  just how
annoying it can be and just how  much it can confuse clerical people, but
it's a one-time  annoyance. So I don't see the  relationship with telling
people they can't use "Reply-To:" in mailing lists.

>We also have significant numbers of  users who have migrated from VAX or
>large IBM  systems (with their  peculiar user  agents) to UNIX,  Mac, or
>Windows systems (and their peculiar user  agents), or to one of the many
>different proprietary  mail systems (which  might still be  gatewayed to
>the Internet).

Are. And are getting connected more and more often, in fact.

>All of these  groups suffer pain when their  expectations are challenged
>as  the result  of  changing  their email  environment,  and it's  quite
>possible that these  users will understand the need for  a standard that
>attempts to promote more uniform behavior.

It's all about "the  price to pay for XXX". When  moving from a mainframe
to Windows, you gain a lot in user friendliness. The price to pay is that
you  have to  relearn  the mail  system. Many  companies  have made  this
evaluation and decided that it was worth the price. Here you're proposing
to remove  a function many people  find useful so that  you can eliminate
some obscure  problems that your  average non-technical user  hardly ever
had (and may not even understand). Good luck.

>The Internet has been anything but  static for the last 9 years. There's
>no reason  to assume that just  because a behavior has  been allowed for
>that long, and even that users are  accustomed to it, that it's not time
>for a change.

May I quote you? :-)

  Eric