In <414858B4(_dot_)4010305(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
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.
Only one of the infinity of field that you propose is a standard
field recognized by UAs and MTAs. Any other than that one would
require updating all UAs and many MTAs.
Yes, but this is a thread which started with a proposal to introduce some
new standard headers, so proposing new standard headers would seem to be
on topic.
It is clear to me that there is a problem, and that it is only going to be
solved decently by updating MUAs in one way or another. Most other
participants seem to accept that. It may be that, during the transitional
period, things will get worse before they get better, but that may be a
price we have to pay.
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.
No, the list owner has no idea of what the message author intended;
he might not be subscribed to the list, desiring personal responses
to be summarized to the list, he might read the list from a web
archive interface w/o being subscribed to the list, he might be
sending a notification to one list that a topic of potential interest
to that list's subscribers is being discussed on another list (with
discussion supposed to take place on the latter list), etc...
In most cases the list owner will have a sufficiently accurate list of his
contributors that he will be able to do a better job than is done at
present. The only people disadvantaged will be those who post to the list
by unconventional means (a minority) and who may in consequence receive
personal replies that they do not want. Remember that we are speaking of a
list owner who inserts MFT (or Reply-To) containing just the list plus
posters believed to be unsubscribed. And then only if such a header was
not already present, so allowing that minority to fix the matter to their
satisfaction by taking a little extra trouble.
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).
Your assumptions are unfounded. Many UAs provide for an easily-changed
"identity" that carries a default Reply-To field, or can use a folder-
specific Reply-To default.
And many user agents don't. And many unsophisticated users will not use
those features even when provided.
--
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