begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:59:16PM -0800: [snip] > Well now, I can argue two sides as well as some, ;-)
Heh. A useful talent. > so I have to say I _can_ actually appreciate the gripe about reply-to > (at least the way it affects my thunderbird client). That's good too. > tbird provides > a "Reply" icon (with tooltip "reply to the message"), and > a "Reply All" icon (tooltip "reply to sender and all recipients") > along with corresponding Message menu entries (with hotkeys shown ^R, > SHIFT+^R) and the, also on the rightclick context menu slightly > different wording "reply to sender only" and "reply to all", which I > believe are still the same 2 operations. I loathe the Reply-All. I think we should forbid more than one target email address, and dispense with CC: entirely -- mostly because what mostly happens is that someone uses a "mailing list" in their mail client and sends 500 people some chain letter. Chances are, one of 'em has a computer that's part of a botnet, and suddenly the level of spam making it through my filter jumps a level. > When there is no reply-to, reply/reply-to-sender uses the "From:" header > (I think), but when there is a Reply-to, it uses the Reply-to. I'm starting to like the idea of munging the From: line as well. Replace it with "Registered Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", and let the user add a parameter to their registration: "forward on direct email" or "route direct email to list". Of course, that will REALLY get the die hard anti-reply-to folks wound up... > If there is no reply-to reply all includes the sender, if there is it > includes the list instead of the sender (which it _could_ get from the > "From:" header, right?) > > OK, so the intended meaning of rfc2822 seems like it may be: > instructions for the client to always use reply-to in place of > from-address. > ==> Thus the gripe that I can't (as easily) reply to the From-address > when a reply-to has taken over.Furthermore it is not the original > sender's intent to make himself harder to (er) reply to. > > ==> This may be considerably *more important on lists that allow posts > from non-subscribers*. Yes. I don't see why a mailing list would /allow/ posts from non-subscribers, really. Where's the benefit? If you ain't gonna listen, why are you talking? > ==> I can easily agree that the mail client (or it's user) is the part > of the system that is broken. Nah. It's the mailing-list software. Couldn't the mailing list software keep track of what options you wanted? "I want unmunged reply-to and list-post headers please. No, make that a munged reply-to and a list-post, thanks." > * * * * * > > The addition on another user option "Reply-to-List" does seem like it > would be what I'm looking for. In fact I'd like to see > > Reply-to-all > Reply-to-list > Reply-to-sender (using From: even if there's a reply-to) > Reply (to my configured choice) In a GUI client, make the a combo box with the other choices available. For a CLI client, cycle thru the options. > I do kinda think maybe lists should use something like a List-Post > header, and then the Reply can go back to meaning a substitute for the > From-address. Inertia is against you. (That doesn't mean give up the good fight...) -- First, let's get rid of top-posted replies. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
