ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: reply options

2004-09-06 15:31:09

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004, Keith Moore wrote:
The recipient typically doesn't have a button that implements "ordinary
reply" - he has two buttons which implement

        "To+Cc+(Reply-to?Reply-to:From)"

(typically labeled "reply all") and

Labelling that button "reply all" is an error, because it fails to
include the From address in the list.

Agreed. In addition, reply-to can cause "reply all" (if it's implemented in this way) to do something besides "reply all".

b) "reply to originator"      

This would probably go to the Return-Path - though strictly speaking,
that's the address where errors should go.  We don't really have an
address for the originator.  Sender is effectively deprecated - it's
far more widely misused (by lists) than used correctly.

Sender is supposed to be the originator.  Lists should leave the header
Sender alone, and adjust the envelope sender (or Return-Path).  Sadly,
some don't do that.

Understood. For a variety of reasons, including not only the behavior of certain lists but also changes in the way mail tends to be submitted these days, I think it's too late to restore the original function of Sender. I think we need a new field that is set by the MSA, and I think it needs to be defined very carefully in order to strike a balance between privacy and traceability.

c) "reply"                    

This would be like your "ordinary reply", I think - it would do the
right thing in the vast majority of cases.  If defined in terms of
today's email header fields it would be something like

        Reply-to?Reply-to:(To+Cc+From)

You are assuming that an ordinary reply should go to to+cc+from (if
there is no Reply-to). I assume that an ordinary reply should go to the
From address (if there is no Reply-to).

I think "ordinary" has a lot to do with the nature of the message. But in email "reply to the author and most recipients" seems more commonly to be the right thing than "reply only to the author" (even if the author can override this with Reply-To).

I think my assumption is closer
to how things work with paper mail, but I think that both options are
useful.

With paper mail it's so laborious to construct replies anyway that the effort required to think about what the "right thing" is (i.e. where replies should go) is marginal. Email makes it so easy to reply that it becomes easier to not think about where replies should go.

- (maybe) the author should be able to specify alternate addresses

I say "maybe" because while useful for delegation, experience seems
to suggest that this is a rare case.  I wonder if it's worth the
additional complexity it requires, especially if (as I am starting to
believe) overloading Reply-to to do both that _and_ excluding unwanted
recipients is a bad idea.

When I send mail with Reply-To set, what I mean is "please think
carefully before replying to any address other than the one I specified
in the Reply-To field".  I suppose I'd like the recipient's user agent
to ask some kind of "are you sure?" question if the recipient invokes
any kind of reply function that would end up sending to some other
address.

As long as Reply-To were only used for the rare case of delegation, I think that would be fine. I think it would be annoying if Reply-to were used as a matter of course to do things like redirect replies to a list.

  [snip example]
Now maybe that's an exceptional case which isn't worth worrying about,
but it illustrates that "wrong split".  Reply-to doesn't tell the
recipient or the recipient's UA _why_ certain addresses should or
should not see replies - it only tells what to do in the ordinary
case.  In any case except the one the author deems "ordinary", the UA
will often do the wrong thing by default, and the recipient is left to
guess.

The recipient can be guided by natural language explanantions in the
body of the message.  The UA needs to make it easy for the recipient to
specify exactly where to send the reply.

Some sort of Reply-case header might help:

        Reply-case: Public discussion: list(_at_)domain ;,
                    Respond to author: author(_at_)domain ;,
                    Register for the event: secretary(_at_)domain ;

User agents would display the list of cases and ask which one (or more)
was appropriate.

Maybe. What I'm thinking of is slightly different. Maybe a hint that says "B is contained in Y; please don't CC address B if you're sending to address Y".

In all cases I think the person composing the reply should be able
to (a) see the original addresses and (b) override the default
reply recipient list - no matter which kind of reply is chosen.

Yes, and also see which header field each original address came from.
If a user agent does all this, then I can use my own judgement to
make replies go to the right place.

Yes, I think this is essential no matter what else we might come up with.

Keith