In <20040909221713(_dot_)0eb23aab(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
There really is a conflict sometimes between what the sender thinks
should happen in the event of a reply and what the recipient wants to
happen with the reply he composes. In that circumstance, the recipient
needs to win.
Yes, but that is the exceptional case. Normally, what the sender asks for
should be what the sender gets. Ultimately, if the replier wants to do
something special, then he can do it, but that is not the commn case and
therefore it should not be what happens if the replier just presses one of
the buttons on offer. If the replier wants to do such special things, then
let him cut and paste.
I think we are in agreement that user agents should uniformly
implement two reply functions (along with being able to edit the
reply address list);
- reply to author
- wide reply (more or less "reply to everyone")
No we are not in such agreement. Firstly, if by "reply to author" you mean
"reply to From", then that is certainly not correct (a replier that wants
to override the Reply-To should be made to jump through some extra hoop,
just to be usre he knows what he is doing).
And secondly, there are still some who would like an explicit "reply to
list" - "reply to all" is just too wide and should be reserved for the
cases where "all" is really, really what you want.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5