On Jul 8, 11:54pm, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
} Subject: Re: best name for followups?
}
} A subscriber sends a message to a mailing list. Someone follows up.
} The response is sent to both the subscriber and the mailing list.
}
} A non-subscriber sends a message to a mailing list. Someone follows
} up. The response is sent to the non-subscriber and the mailing list.
Let's restate those two cases as:
A subscriber sends a message to a mailing list. Some recipient
uses the reply-using-destination-fields function of his user
agent. The response is sent both to the subscriber and to the
mailing list.
A non-subscriber sends a message to a mailing list. Some recipient
uses the reply-using-destination-fields function of his user agent.
The response is sent to the non-subscriber and to the mailing list.
Now we can all agree, I think, on this:
} So the original author has to put some extra information into his header
} to differentiate the two situations.
There are three ways to approach this problem:
1. The originator who is on the mailing list can ask (not require) the
recipients to omit him from the replies.
2. The originator who is NOT on the mailing list can ask the recipients
to include him in the replies.
3. Both kinds of originators can suggest the full list of destinations
to which the recipients should direct replies.
} The obvious solution is a followup field. This would put control
} directly in the hands of the original author, and it would be trivial to
} implement. My question is what this field should be called.
I agree with Keith that a followup field is not an obvious solution, and
therefore that debating what to call it is premature. It is not obvious
because:
* It is introducing a new concept; reply-using-destination-fields
is not the same as the traditional netnews concept of `followup'.
* It requires UAs to restrict their reply-using-destination-fields
behavior when it is present, rather than permitting them to extend
their basic reply behavior when it is present.
* It requires originators to supply too much information; they must
not only suggest how recipients should deal with their own address,
but must also suggest how to deal with all destination addresses.
I don't think using Reply-To is a viable solution, because:
* It requires UAs to restrict their reply-using-destination-fields
behavior when it is present. Sounds familiar, but in this case
it's worse, because it retroactively changes the interpretation of
reply-using-destination-fields for messages sent long ago.
* It requires originators to supply too much information (a generic
problem with approach #3 above).
* Mailing lists must stop rewriting Reply-To. List managers are not
going to give up control over list policy (direct replies to the
list or away from it) and Reply-To is the only way to influence a
large number of existing user agents.
So it does seem that a new differentiator is necessary, but I don't think
`followup' is the obvious or correct one.
The claimed benefits of `followup' are:
* Gives control to the original author (but too much so).
* Easy to implement (maybe).
* Existing UAs support the concept (but they don't, really).
* No transition problem from current practice.
Here's an alternative which I think betters `followup' on every one of
those points: Define a `Reply-Cc' field, with the semantics that the
address(es) in the Reply-Cc field should be copied to the Cc field of
the reply; the semantics of all existing fields remain unchanged, except
of course that the presence of Reply-To does not exclude the Reply-Cc.
Gives control to the original author: In approach #1, the originator
places the address of the mailing list in Reply-To and omits Reply-Cc.
In approach #2, the originator places his own address in Reply-Cc and
does whatever he likes with Reply-To. Using both provides approach #3.
Easy to implement: Many UAs can begin sending it immediately. Simple
rule for what to do with the addresses when constructing a reply.
Existing UAs support the concept: Every UA has replies and Cc fields,
and every user knows what they mean. Nothing new to learn.
No transition problem: `Reply-using-destination-fields' behaviors are
completely unchanged. As support spreads, users can use `reply' instead,
even in mailing-list circumstances to get `followup'-like behavior, and
thereby reduce duplications. List servers don't have to change.
There's probably even some mailer out there somewhere that already has a
Reply-Cc field that works this way.
A final remark: This whole debate could have been avoided by dumping the
term `followup'. Call the silly thing `Reply-Destinations' and stick with
the concept of `reply'. That doesn't solve any of the other problems with
it, but at least Dan can stop pretending that he and Keith don't understand
each other.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com