ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member messages to lists]

2004-10-18 18:41:36


----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member
messages to lists]


Please understand what is being said here first before injected more
stubborn responses that lead no where.

What I understand is that you're making this stuff up, trying to
interpret the mail protocol in your own way without regard for
interoperability or other people's experience.


Keith,  it seems very natural of you to call the kettle black. That is
exactly most people see you.

In any case, I am not making anything up.  I pointed out the conflicted
expected behaviors for MUAs in regards to a EMAIL vs. MAILING List concept.
I believe most agree with this.

The issue now seems to be HOW you believe it is not a requirement (or
disagree) to defined what is the "default" group address for a natural reply
response.

I believe it is when it comes to a LIST concept.  This isn't making things
up.  I can atleast point to real commercial product operations with this
stuff and its not exclusive to just offline mail reading, but also online.
Can you?    It is a long time product design, that at a minimum,
distinguishes an operation that works better for the most common MUA, and
that includes both OFFLINE and ONLINE operations.  If there is anyone
swaging it, it is you.

Yet, I understand very clearly that when it comes to the MUA offering better
support for a natural list reply, makes it more difficult for the user to
reply off-list directly to the author.

On the other hand, the list system (such as the one used here) that doesn't
make it natural, makes it more difficult for the user as well to reply just
to the list, which also includes a propensity for the creation of extra
unnecessary bandwidth.

I prefer the first design.   Nonetheless, once again, I think the ultimate
solution is as follows:

1) List Expanders include a standard List-Address: header or
    something that reflects the address to response back to the list(s)
   that may be different from the author's desirable Reply-To:

2) This will help future MUA to better handle all types:
    Pure Email, List Email and News as well.

If you don't agree. Fine. I can expect that from you.

But what is your solution?

--
Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com















<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>