Assuming even 90% of the MUAs are updated to support a followup field,
how robust will it be if somebody in the 10% uses the bcc chainsaw
If you leave out the new field, you get the same response from new MUAs
as you do from old MUAs.
(a) has anybody considered reply/forward and the difference between
them for followups?
It's always annoying when you want to retroactively change the recipient
list in a message. You can send a new message, but that's annoying for
the recipients, and some klutz will respond to the old message anyway.
The same problem arises now if you make a typo in your recipient list.
One solution is to add a level of indirection---hide all the recipients
behind a mailing list---but this is often inconvenient.
more than one posting (possibly with divergent followups).
Some MUAs let you reply or follow up to several messages at once. They
simply merge the recipient lists.
(c) we also need to think about if we *do* create a new Followup:
header, what its interactions with bcc: and disclosing the recipient
list really are
The first question is what the visible RFC 822 header should contain.
A _blind_ carbon copy has no effect here.
The second question is who the user wants to send blind copies to. He
can decide that for himself.
What's the problem?
Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html