[Top] [All Lists]

Re: best name for followups?

1997-07-09 10:26:16
On Jul 9,  4:01pm, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
} Subject: Re: best name for followups?
} 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.

I hope you enjoy talking to yourself, then.

} > 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.

What's the connection between that and whether UAs are following 4.4.4?

} The relevant part of 4.4.4 is the third bulleted item:

You'll note that I had quoted that specific item.

} when Reply-To exists, it replaces From as the target of replies.

When Reply-To exists, it replaces From when automatically generating
address lists from originator fields, yes.

} Keith proposes using From whether or not Reply-To exists.

I've seen no evidence that this is what Keith proposes, other than your
willful misrepresentations.  Based on what Keith has written, I interpret
his proposal as "never use the contents of destination fields to generate
reply addresses when a Reply-To header is present."  This does not imply
"always use From."

Keith does also propose "don't send a Reply-To field when that isn't what
you mean," but that's a recommendation for originators, not a change for

} > Even if you grant dispensation for common practice,
} Perhaps you should read RFC 822. It explicitly recognizes that MUAs can
} provide additional response facilities.

You refer to this text:

        This recommendation is intended only for automated use
        of originator-fields and is not intended to suggest
        that replies may not also be sent to other recipients
        of messages.  It is up to the respective mail-handling
        programs to decide what additional facilities will be

I agree that this supports the position that UAs should not be restricted
from using destination fields to generate reply addresses.  However, that
undermines your own proposal as much as it does Keith's.

It also supports, by the phrase "additional facilities," my assertion that
`reply using From + To + Cc' is extended functionality and explicitly not
covered (though also explicitly not prohibited) by 4.4.4.

Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises    

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>