In <99347BBC-0718-11D9-9556-000393DB5366(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> Keith
Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
A large part of the problem is that some people think that
(a) Reply-To specifies the complete list of recipients that the author
thinks should receive replies
while other people think that
(b) Reply-To specifies a list of recipients to be used instead of the
From address when directing replies.
I'd argue that the proper function is (a) but the reality is (b).
My understanding is the opposite. RFC 2822 seems to me to imply that the
Reply-To address is a substitute for the From address - i.e.(b).
I would never suppose that a Reply-to-All button should do other than what
it says (and certainly that is what both the MUAs available on my machine
do).
(I seem to recall that Dave Crocker once argued that the intent was
(b), but I may recall incorrectly.)
Then I seem to be in good company :-) .
Mail-Followup-To seems to fit the bill.
One of my concerns with MFT is that it's being promoted and used as a
way to suppress some kinds of duplicate copies of replies. There's a
conflict between using a field like this to suppress duplicate copies
and using the same field to indicate whether the author thinks replies
should go to somewhere besides "everyone who received this message":
MFT tells where replies are to be sent in the case of a Reply-to-All (or
maybe a Reply-to-List if avaiable). Its chief merit is that it has the
flexibility to fulfil both the roles you mention, plus the case of
crossposts between several mailing lists. That, of course, assumes that it
is used correctly; ensuring that it is used correctly may turn out to be
its biggest problem (hence the desirability of MUA support for generating
it).
- The recipient's user interface needs to act differently in these two
cases - in the first case it's just a normal "reply all" since
everybody is getting a copy of the message. In the second case the
replier needs to be aware that the reply is going to a different set of
recipients than is normal, and it seems appropriate for the MUA to
provide some kind of alert to that effect.
No problem with an alert, provided I have the option to configure it off.
--
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