ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-moore-mail-nr-fields-00.txt]

2004-09-04 17:30:25

Russ Allbery wrote:

However, by doing so, I am making it difficult for anyone to send a
private reply to me should they have something they don't feel is
appropriate for the list.
[...]
I want to
indicate a preference that if the message is sent to the mailing list, I
not recieve an extra *copy*.

There is no way of representing those semantics with Reply-To in the way
that you describe
[...]
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)             
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All of a sudden it's "difficult" to click on a mailto URI like the
one above?  Or to right-click on the mailbox in the From line and
select "compose mail to"?  With a "reply to author" function that
works (i.e. using the From field), what precisely is the problem?

There's no way to specify what you say you want using standard fields
*other* than with Reply-To as described.  If a new field adding some
nuance were added tomorrow, the standardized current behavior for
responses which is based solely on the existing standard fields
would continue to be used until a new standard taking the
hypothetical new field into account were written, plus software
implementing that in UAs was written -- and widely deployed.
Any such scheme would have to account for the diversity of senders'
desires, so that you can indicate what you want, Keith can indicate
what he wants, etc.

Adding properly implemented "reply to author" to UAs is likely to
happen faster that any such field addition + standards revision +
UA software rewrites.  Assuming the hypothetical standards revision
wouldn't entail any interoperability problems...

It looks like the "least pain" solution still involves user
education + advice to UA authors; followed by action by UA
authors to implement "reply to author" where is has not already
been properly implemented.


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