Keith's proposal is to use Reply-To to control replies, and to ignore
the concept of followups entirely.
I know that _Keith_ is ignoring the concept of followups. However,
_MUAs_ already have the concept, and they're not going to throw it away.
I don't think it's useful to apply the netnews concept of `followup' to the
common email UA function of `reply using From + To + Cc'.
Until I hear better terminology, I'm going to continue to use ``reply''
and ``followup'' as generic terms for the two response functions in
existing MUAs.
Actually, none of them are following 4.4.4 when they do `reply to all',
You misunderstand. Keith is proposing a change in _replies_, not just
followups.
The relevant part of 4.4.4 is the third bulleted item: when Reply-To
exists, it replaces From as the target of replies.
Keith proposes using From whether or not Reply-To exists.
Whenever From and Reply-To are different---e.g., a secretary sending a
message for the boss---Keith's change in semantics poses an impossible
transition problem. The only way for users to retain control over
replies is to copy Reply-To into From, violating the RFC 822 From
semantics.
Even if you grant dispensation for common practice,
Perhaps you should read RFC 822. It explicitly recognizes that MUAs can
provide additional response facilities.
I happen to think it's useful enough extended functionality that it ought
to be recognized by the standards;
Standards? I'm talking about reality, not the IETF.
---Dan
Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html