In <20041015200743(_dot_)60421(_dot_)qmail(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to> "D. J.
Bernstein" <djb(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to> writes:
Keith Moore writes:
Actually some people are proposing blind acceptance. They want MFT to
be honored automagically, regardless of the content of the reply.
No. Mail-Followup-To does _not_ override the wishes of the user sending
the followup. It is simply a _default_ recipient list. The old de-facto
standard was
Exactly so.
In Usenet, posters have the option of letting followups go to the original
newsgroup(s) (that is the default), or of asking them to go to a subset of
those groups (or even to a totally disparate set of newsgroup(s)), or of
asking them to be mailed back to the poster.
And yet I have heard no demands to abolish this system on the grounds that
the replier's rights to expect followups to go to the original newsgroups
are being usurped. Usenet users are used to the idea that they should take
note of where the followup is actually going to go, and to override
manually if they do not like that. Newsreaders do not, in general, put up
'alerts' and display headers in RED as has been suggested (though I grant
that it is considered polite to say in the body that followups have been
directed other than naive users might expect).
So if that has been working fine for 20 or more years in Unsenet, why the
great issue if a means to achieve essentially the same effect is proposed
for mailing lists?
--
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