<200505261838(_dot_)59592(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)63(_dot_)0505262340350(_dot_)7726(_at_)sheen(_dot_)jakma(_dot_)org>
<200505271041(_dot_)43706(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:33:19 GMT
Lines: 27
MIME-Version: 1.0
In <200505271041(_dot_)43706(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
writes:
As another, not uncommon, example, consider a message posted to a mailing
list with a request by the author to send off-list (only) responses, to
be summarized by the author. The author could easily indicate that with
Reply-To, and every response that is directed "where the author suggested"
will comply with that. For such a mailing list message, your "list context"
would send a doubly wrong response -- it wouldn't go directly to the author
(as requested) and would go to the entire list (contrary to the request).
That is exactly the sort of situation that MFT is supposed to deal with.
In the absence of MFT, then using the List-Post address is the right
thing when "Replying-to-List". But if MFT is present, it should override
the List-Post. There might even be a 'list' keyword in the MFT header to
mean reply to List-Post (to be used in addition to the sender's address if
he want replies both to the list and himself).
--
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