Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Keith Moore writes:
you're free to set Reply-To to ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
I don't want _replies_ to go to ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_) I want
_followups_
to go to ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_)
"followup" is a Usenet term. Usenet has two different kinds of
addresses - email addresses and newsgroups. Responses to the author's
email address are replies; responses to newsgroups are followups. Email
does not have visibly different kinds of addresses and does make a
distinction between replies and followups. Email UAs have "reply" and
"reply to all" or similar. For several reasons including both protocol
differences and cultural differences between email and Usenet, email's
"reply to all" and Usenet's "followup" are not quite the same thing.
What's the difference? I view them as conceptually the same thing.
And I don't see evidence of any desire among users to make email more
like Usenet. (actually I see plenty of evidence to the contrary. but I
digress.)
Perhaps the users of gmane.org would disagree. I'm reading this
mailing list via news through their services, for example.
An increasing number of MUAs support the sender specifying
a followup list (normally with Mail-Followup-To) that doesn't include
the reply list; that's what users want.
A few MUAs support MFT. The ones I've seen that support MFT represent
an insignificant part of the installed base, so I don't accept an
argument that the level of MUA spport for MFT is an indication of user
preference.
For that matter, the most widely used OS by far is rife with security
holes and has been for nearly 10 years now, but I don't accept that as
an indication of user preference for security holes.
It seems to me that you've had a lot of time to try to get MFT widely
accepted in the marketplace. Your failure to do so doesn't necessarily
mean that MFT is bad, and it says nothing about the relative merits of
MFT vs. NR. But it probably does mean that claims that equate market
acceptance with rightness are moot in this discussion.
Right. But as far as standardization goes, having a proposal
implemented and tested in practice is a strong argument. Running
code, and all that. The problems with MFT appear to be well
understood, and some communities still chose to use MFT. So I
believe, regardless of any NR vs MFT discussion, that the needs of the
people using MFT should be taken care of by any proposal.
Thanks,
Simon