The problem as I see it is that we have a standard for 1-1 (direct)
email messages, but no standard for a list distribution to handle the
above two reply options. I can see this in comparison with the list
server handling this IETF-2822 list and our list server. Both are
doing slighty things in preparing headers so that the two actions are
slightly different.
In one case (the list server used here), the "Reply to Sender" will
go to the author. In our list server, the "Reply to Sender" goes to
the list address.
I guess the difference is that we make sure the "Reply-To:" address
is properly set in the distribution.
Is that more correct?
Many lists set Reply-To in that way, but the general wisdom, as
promulgated in various FAQs, is that it is a Bad Thing. The chief
reason for that is that it mucks up the case where you really DO want
to reply individually to the author (a few MUAs have a
"Reply-to-From-address" button which sort-of gets around the problem).
So the solution that has been suggested (and implemented in some
places) is to have a Mail-Followup-To header (MFT) in addition to
Reply-To.
This is not a solution. It's another version of the same problem.
Several people have expressed broad satisfaction with the MFT idea
(modulo working out the precise details), but a couple of regulars on
this list seem violently opposed to it, so there we are.
I think all of us, myself included, see _some_ merit in MFT in that we
recognize that Reply-To is broken for "reply all" and we need something
to replace or augment it. We may disagree on whether it's a good idea
for lists to set MFT, or whether it's a good idea for recipient MUAs to
blindly honor MFT when composing replies, or whether MFT is a good way
to suppress duplicate copies of replies, or whether the semantics of MFT
and Mail-Reply-To as Dan has defined them (allowing the author of a
message to separately redefine the meaning of "followup" and "reply" for
that message) are appropriate and desirable.
Some of us may believe that those issues can be solved by "working out
the precise details". My personal belief is that we're not ready to
think of this in terms of tweaking of details because there are still
too many differences of opinion as to the appropriate overall goals.
Keith