D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Keith Moore writes:
NR has no way to specify situations where "reply to all" is not sent
to a superset of the recipients who would be sent if "reply to author"
were used instead.
Then NR is broken.
Not necessarily so. Kindly explain under precisely which circumstance(s)
"reply-to-all" should *not* be a superset of "reply-to-author" and why.
When I send a message to ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, I do _not_
want followups to be sent to the original reply address. That's why my
message says Mail-Followup-To: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_)
There is no "mail-followup-to" -- it is defined in no RFC and in
no Internet draft. If one wants replies sent to a specific list
of addresses, that is precisely what the standard Reply-To header
field is for.
as far as I can tell, this is a plus for NR.
Then you are fundamentally confused about what mail users want to do.
Anybody who apparently thinks that mail users wish to receive strident
spam-like "you didn't honor "mail-followup-to'" cruft is fundamentally
confused about what mail users want and don't want.