jn Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 02:33:04AM -0500, Phil Pennock wrote: > * patch-08 : default Muttrc change > "set followup_to=no"
Since Mail-Followup-To (to the best of my knowledge) was never ratified as a standard (and the draft has since expired), and is not supported by most mainstream MUAs, is it worth changing the official default to "no", or even dropping support entirely? Is supporting a draft that never became a standard considered standards-compliant, or not? I like the idea, but to me, Mutt's way of thinking about it is a little flawed -- the idea that you always want an off-list reply when replying to a list you're not subscribed to, and always want an on-list reply when replying to a list you are subscribed to is not always the case in my experience (and, by design, it's not one of the headers you can view or edit with $edit_headers set, which also prevents you from doing some optional things mentioned in the RFC, like requesting that followups go to only one of the lists that the message was originally sent to). Interestingly, it does seem like Thunderbird now has support for it. Do any other MUAs which any number of people actually use support M-F-T? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Help_Documentation:Mail-Followup-To_and_Mail-Reply-To The biggest problem I have with it is practical -- the people whose mailers support it are the same people who are least likely to send off-list copies of messages even when M-F-T is not set, and the people whose mailers don't support it are the most likely to send off-list copies even when it is. w
