In <87llfqh8ve(_dot_)fsf(_at_)windlord(_dot_)stanford(_dot_)edu> Russ Allbery
<rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu> writes:
There are more pieces missing than just a header like MFT, I think. At
the least, I think we need some way of representing the following:
* Is the user a member of the mailing list to which they sent the mail?
............
The mailing list manager can answer this question itself in some
circumstances (skipping the problem of people subscribed under
different addresses than they send mail, which is uncommon in the
situations where I see this the most, but which is a tricky problem
when it happens). However, it doesn't really have anywhere to *put*
that information for the use of MUAs.
Well there are at least three places it could put information to help a
subsequent MUA:
Reply-To:
Mail-Follouwps-To:
Mail-Copies-To:
and if none of those suffices, then we could always invent another one.
But, in all cases, the List Expander should only insert such a header if
the original User had not already done so.
* Should replies to list postings *generally* go only to the list or to
the list and the user, as a matter of list culture?
Speaking *generally*, the list-owner is in the best position to know the
culture, and that will affect how he fills in whatever header he chooses
to insert.
* Does the individual user want copies of list postings? This is what
MFT expresses clearly when used fully, and it deals with such issues as
"crossposts" between multiple mailing lists. This should probably
override the list default in nearly all cases, if expressed.
Yes, MFT can do the best job when used correctly, but it only works best
when used in conjunction with a MUA that is pre-configured with a list of
known mailing lists and instructions as to how that user wants each one
treated (and it is the _only_ method with any chance of processing
cross-posts to several lists correctly and automatically).
But I guess attempts by a user to fill MFT in manually would be too much
for 'unsophisticated' users. OTOH, it would make good sense for the
list-owner to fill it in it not provided by the user (because the
list-owner shouls know whether that user is on the list).
But relying on the User to fill in Reply-To would be even worse (indeed
any solution that requires manual action by the user on _every_ response
to a list is doomed from the start). In particular, use of Reply-To is the
Wrong Thing if the replier really does want to reply to the author and ot
to the list. OTOH it does work quite well when inserted by the
list-expander in particular lists with a culture suited to it.
Mail-Copies-To is all right so far as it goes, but it only tackles some of
the problems. I think, on balance, I would prefer Mail-Followups-To.
--
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