Let's get this list started

  Of the three proposed Requests For Comments I have about Gemini:

=> gemini://gemini.conman.org/gRFC/

one is no longer applicable (the text format for a Gemini index now allows
reflowing), one has been accepted (although that was in the works before I
wrote it) and one is still out there (optionally including the size of the
document).  I'm curious as to the thoughts about that last one.           

  Also, does anyone know what's up with HeavySquare.com?                  

=> gemini://heavysquare.com/                                   

  I can't seem to get anything from that server.

  -spc

> one is no longer applicable (the text format for a Gemini index now allows
> reflowing), one has been accepted (although that was in the works before I
> wrote it) and one is still out there (optionally including the size of the
> document).

I'll start separate threads about text reflowing and size shortly, so we
can keep separate topics in separate threads to make it easy for people
to follow things they care about.

>   Also, does anyone know what's up with HeavySquare.com?                  
> 
> => gemini://heavysquare.com/                                   
> 
>   I can't seem to get anything from that server.

Me neither, I get a header of "4\tNot Found." for everything.  I'll
email the admin and see if I can find out what's happening.

-Solderpunk

It was thus said that the Great solderpunk once stated:
> > one is no longer applicable (the text format for a Gemini index now allows
> > reflowing), one has been accepted (although that was in the works before I
> > wrote it) and one is still out there (optionally including the size of the
> > document).
> 
> I'll start separate threads about text reflowing and size shortly, so we
> can keep separate topics in separate threads to make it easy for people
> to follow things they care about.
> 
> >   Also, does anyone know what's up with HeavySquare.com?                  
> > 
> > => gemini://heavysquare.com/                                   
> > 
> >   I can't seem to get anything from that server.
> 
> Me neither, I get a header of "4\tNot Found." for everything.  I'll
> email the admin and see if I can find out what's happening.

  Oh ... this list subscribes to the "don't munge the Reply-To" header ...
sigh.  

  -spc

>   Oh ... this list subscribes to the "don't munge the Reply-To" header ...
> sigh.  

Yeah, it's a little bit of a hassle.  I'll see if we can get that fixed.

-Solderpunk

I can change the reply-to setting, if you prefer.

On August 15, 2019 3:13:53 AM CDT, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:
>It was thus said that the Great solderpunk once stated:
>> > one is no longer applicable (the text format for a Gemini index now
>allows
>> > reflowing), one has been accepted (although that was in the works
>before I
>> > wrote it) and one is still out there (optionally including the size
>of the
>> > document).
>> 
>> I'll start separate threads about text reflowing and size shortly, so
>we
>> can keep separate topics in separate threads to make it easy for
>people
>> to follow things they care about.
>> 
>> >   Also, does anyone know what's up with HeavySquare.com?           
>      
>> > 
>> > => gemini://heavysquare.com/                                   
>> > 
>> >   I can't seem to get anything from that server.
>> 
>> Me neither, I get a header of "4\tNot Found." for everything.  I'll
>> email the admin and see if I can find out what's happening.
>
>Oh ... this list subscribes to the "don't munge the Reply-To" header
>...
>sigh.  
>
>  -spc

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20190815/1bd4
12a7/attachment.htm>

Normally I don't top-post, but I am on mobile. Sorry about that.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20190815/3037
5dd2/attachment.htm>

> I can change the reply-to setting, if you prefer.

Well, I for one would strongly prefer just being able to reply to any
email from the list and have it be sent only to the list, rather than
back to the author with (at best) a CC to the list (so that the author
ends up with two copies).  That system is pretty cumbersome and I've
never quite understood why it's so common.

Does the backend for this list permit something like that?

-Solderpunk

> Normally I don't top-post, but I am on mobile. Sorry about that.

No worries, I'm not that bothered by it, personally.

-Solderpunk

> Does the backend for this list permit something like that?

Yes, I have changed the relevant setting. It will not override an explicit 
reply-to by the author, but if there is none, it will add a reply-to to the list.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20190815/1b50
ee27/attachment.htm>

> Yes, I have changed the relevant setting. It will not override an 
explicit reply-to by the author, but if there is none, it will add a 
reply-to to the list.

Splendid, many thanks!

-Solderpunk

It was thus said that the Great solderpunk once stated:
> > I can change the reply-to setting, if you prefer.

  I see that's been fixed.  Thanks.

> Well, I for one would strongly prefer just being able to reply to any
> email from the list and have it be sent only to the list, rather than
> back to the author with (at best) a CC to the list (so that the author
> ends up with two copies).  That system is pretty cumbersome and I've
> never quite understood why it's so common.

  It goes back to "'Reply-To:' munging considered harmful":

	http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

This is an older argument (I wrote about it back in 2000 [1]) and I'm in the
camp of "'Reply-To:' munging is okay".

  -spc

[1]	http://boston.conman.org/2000/02/03.1
	http://boston.conman.org/2000/02/03.2
	http://boston.conman.org/2000/02/04.3