On Fri May 27 2005 18:34, Paul Jakma wrote:
There seems to be broad consensus among MUA designers on the first
two of these contexts (personal and public), and a slow consensus
evolving on providing a "list reply" context for users.
There is clearly a /perceived/ need for such a context, at least.
The fact that already several MUAs (popular ones at that,
thunderbird, apple mail, and mutt) /do/ do see fit to provide a "list
context"
I see nothing resembling that in Thunderbird.
Hmm, I must be confused then. Sorry. (It appears to be an extension).
Kmail and Evolution MUAs definitely have it.
Kmail and Evolution provide options for directing responses "To List",
in addition to other places (e.g. "To Sender", "To Author"), not a
"context".
Why does it provide this quirk?
I don't know -- maybe quirky developers (ones who like medium gray
text on a dark gray background).
Hence, Reply-To can /not/ be used.
You're going to have to justify that claim.
Because the most likely reason for it being set are:
- The author's preferred 'receive' mailbox is not their From
(ie to indicate preference for their personal mailbox)
Makes no sense -- for replies "to author" the From field mailbox can
(and should) be set accordingly.
- The author set it to direct replies to the list
The latter case is, ime, rare.
Umm, look at this message for example (and note past messages as well).
That specific case (along with a couple of others) is specifically
mentioned in RFC 724, which has been around for close to three decades,
and its successors.
2. Sometimes one list's expansion feeds another list, and one may
then have multiple sets of List-fields; one cannot in general tell
which list is included in another. Sending to all directly will
result in duplicates in the included list. Picking only the included
list (by guessing) won't copy the subscribers of the other list who
are not also subscribed to the included list.
That seems a problem with the definition of List-Post, and would
affect any usage of List-Post, not just this proposed usage. Out of
scope for what I'm proposing.
No, it's a problem with your proposal; Reply-To: list-foo(_at_)example(_dot_)com
works fine to specify responses to the (including) list (possibly in
addition to other mailboxes). That removes any ambiguity about which
list responses are supposed to be sent to.