----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
To: "ietf-822" <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Understanding response protocols
Kmail, Evolution, Pine.
Ok, I would have to note these down for exploration .
... Usually specific folder settings.
Ok, thats the only way I can see it work reliablity - using an offline
configuration concept because it certainly isn't an automated integrated
mail concept.
That has not been the case of recent messages with yours. A Reply to
Sender does how I shown above because of your own Reply-To: address
going
to the list address.
Author (or author's UA per author's configuration) sets Reply-To: good.
List expander sets Reply-To: very bad. RFC 2822 says "When the
"Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the
author of the message suggests that replies be sent". N.B. "author",
not anybody or anything else.
Well, life is about flux and change.
I can see and agree with your input. Always have. But there is a small
difference here that I believe "maybe" you don't to consider or want to turn
a blind side to. Maybe you do.
I'm not telling you nothing. but with a list system, this isn't a 1 to 1
communications anymore. The "list" concept works on the basis the list
address is an "alias user" mailbox which has reached it's final destination.
At which point where the list server needs to expand, the concept of "Mail
Integrity" isn't as "strong" as it was a 1 to 1 concept. I am not saying
there is no guidelines any more here, but from a "mail movement" standpoint,
there is precedence from defined the Reply-To field at the list server.
That is the part of the realistic, practical, decades old "equation" that is
missing from the RFC 2822 definition you continue to cite.
I understand your standpoint - the MUA should define all this. But that
isn't realistic for a Conference Mail/Groupware concept like a mailing list
and far more often than not, it creates more issues compared to forcing the
Reply-To: to the list address REGARDLESS of whole set it. You set it for a
reason. You are able to do so with your MUA. I am guessing it is your MUA
folder settings. But it could of been the list-server and done for the same
reasons you are trying to achieve offline.
What is missing from all this are new integrated mail design standard where
"Conference-Based" considerations are taken into account in a 1 to 1 email
transport structure.
In any case, I would interested in seeing a proposal for a new list address
field that MUAs can begin to use specifically for a "Reply-To-List" concept
which is nothing more than:
old :
char *ReplyToSender()
{
char *to_address = reply_to_address;
if (to_address empty) to_address = from_address;
return to_address;
}
new addition:
char *ReplyToList()
{
char *to_address = list_to_address;
if (to_address empty) to_address = ReplyToSender();
return to_address;
}
We have 7 MUA device systems to support.
Console Text (Online)
Silver Xpress (offline)
Platinum Xpress (online)
Wildcat Navigator (online)
Web Mail (online)
Offline Mail Doors (offline)
RFC based Mail Reader (offline)
I would most definitely consider a proposal that helps the "user
expectations" of replying back to the list.
The difference in your thinking process is more within the MUA. I need to
take everything into account, including those more current and legacy MUAs
as well that doesn't have a Conference Mail concept for the EMAIL side of
the MUA.
Finally, I have to listen to customers who say forcing a Reply-To: is far
more better than dealing with the redundant mail being sent all parties
unbeknownst to the casual user when it sees a "reply" button and only has
one kind of thinking - "that must be how I reply."
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com