> Hmmm. It seems we have an opportunity to write an RFC that would spec a > "reply-to-list" header and a "reply-to-author" header, and discuss how to > implement selection of these two reply options in common email > clients. When the reader has two "reply to" buttons active when reading > any given list post, and can easily and quickly click on the appropriate > button for the reply they plan to send (or even change it later, while > composing, if the reply changes tone while they are writing), it would make > it a lot easier for everyone to send the reply where they want it to go. > > Or has this already been done? I'm a bit behind in keeping up with email > related RFCs. Reply-to has been discussed many times in IETF working groups and been found to be a topic that there's no agreement on.
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? J C Lawrence
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? JC Dill
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Bernie Cosell
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? David W. Tamkin
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? J C Lawrence
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? David W. Tamkin
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? David W. Tamkin
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? JC Dill
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? J C Lawrence
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Roger Fajman
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Roger Fajman
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? J C Lawrence
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? David W. Tamkin
- Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? JC Dill
