Date: 2005-08-26 17:44
From: Peter Dambier <peter(_at_)peter-dambier(_dot_)de>
To: IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Reply to: peter(_at_)peter-dambier(_dot_)de
N.B.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
No, what needs to happen if we collectively decide we don't want the
current behavior is that the mailinglist software sets a "reply-to"
header, so when you hit "reply" or "group reply" your reply is sent
with the list in the "To:" field and nothing else. This used to work
well, not sure if modern clients handle this correctly, though. Try to
reply to this message to see what happens.
One important nit: Reply-To is an originator field (RFC 2822) and should
never be forged by somebody or something (e.g. list expander) other than the
originator. Mailing lists have the List-Post field (RFC 2369) available
for mailing list use, e.g.:
List-Post: <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Great, it works!
Except of course when some people (ahem!) set Reply-To to an individual
mailbox, forcing respondents to use a reply-all function to reach the
discussion list (with a copy to the specified mailbox) if the optional
List-Post field is missing...
It is unsurprising that Reply-To functions in that manner; it is an explicit
purpose of the field dating back at least to RFC 724 (May 1977):
3) Reply-to:
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three
different uses for this feature can be distinguished. In
the first case, the author(s) may not have regular
machine-based mailboxes and therefore wish to indicate an
alternate machine address. In the second case, an author
may wish additional persons to be made aware of, or
responsible for, responses; responders should send their
replies to the "Reply-to:" mailbox(es). More interesting
is a case such as text-message teleconferencing in which an
automatic distribution facility is provided and a user
submitting an "entry" for distribution only needs to send
their message to the mailbox(es) indicated in the "Reply-
to:" field.
"text-message teleconferencing" is a quaint reference to mailing lists.
Date: 2005-08-26 23:46
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com>
I really hate lists with "reply-to" pointing to the list.
I know when I want to reply to the list, and when I want to reply
individually to the sender. When reply-to points to the list, it is
extremely difficult with most mailers to send a reply to the originator.
Kmail, Evolution, and Sylpheed each have options for sending a response to
the message author directly, and Pine prompts for a user decision. For
others, selection from a list or copy-and-paste often suffice. I won't
try to characterize "most" UAs, as I haven't examined all of them, but if a
particular one lacks a feature, the most effective ways to remedy the problem
are to contact the supplier or, failing a suitable enhancement, to switch to
a UA that does provide the desired functionality. Certainly there are plenty
of products available.
As noted in RFC 724 and its successors, there are several reasons for use of
the Reply-To field; clearly neither the field nor its uses are new. The lack
of a facility for dealing with messages using the Reply-To field for its
intended purpose is a serious defect in an MUA.
Date: 2005-08-27 02:16
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
My "astonishment factor" was worse than the small difficulty
to copy and paste From when I know that I have to be careful.
Reply-To is a standard field and ought to be visible when viewing the
original message [1]. In any event, the To field of the response ought to
be clearly visible. In either case, if not, see above re. effective ways to
remedy UA problems.
----
1. Part of the problem is UAs which suppress message header fields, caused
by the proliferation of "noise" fields in the message header (initially
SMTP "Mail-From", subsequently renamed "Received", and now including a
large number of others). There is a series of drafts describing a
backwards-compatible extension to the Internet Message Format to rectify
that problem. See draft-lilly-extensible-internet-message-format-p01-00
and related parts p02-p04.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf