In <D7004A80-0BD3-11D9-81C5-000393DB5366(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> Keith
Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Precisely! I think that's exactly what the proponents of MFT are
arguing.
But I think they _do_ want to worry about whether their replies are
going to "all" or to some other set of recipients. And MFT can cause
the replies to go to some other set of recipients without the responder
realizing this.
Then when we come to write the draft for MFT (whatever), we write into it
that MUAs SHOULD/MAY (as a matter of best practice) do certain things,
like alerting the user, or showing the intended To: and Cc: headers; and
we ensure that the syntax/whatever of the header provides all reasonable
information to assist in that. I have already suggested that much useful
information could be encoded into group syntax, or that additional syntax
(e.g. MIME-style parameters) could be 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