* On 20 Feb 2013, Charles Cazabon wrote: > David Champion <d...@bikeshed.us> wrote: > > > > I haven't kept up as much lately with email RFC as I used to, but I'm > > unaware of any standard means of *requesting* a cc (or of declaring > > any other reply policy, besides Reply-To:). > > Mail-Followup-To: is fairly well supported, though I don't think you'll find > it in the RFCs. It also works in cases where lists munge reply-to:.
As I mentioned in the unquoted part of my mail, it's not in any RFC, and while it's a great feature it's not what I would call "fairly well supported". http://www.leptonite.org/mft/software.html Not in this table: gmail (web) does not; Android mail does not; iOS mail does not; Apple Mail does not; Outlook does not. That is 70% - 80% of the market, depending on how you account for it. http://visual.ly/email-client-market-share-new-stats http://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/will-it-work/email-clients/ These data are very rough, and typically are tracked by log analysis of web bugs in HTML mail, but I'm comfortable considering clients that don't chase these automatically a very marginal client population. Among those marginal clients, (al)pine remains more popular than mutt, and still quite vocally does not support MFT. I'd wager that Yahoo! and Hotmail don't supoprt it, either. Without exhaustively testing every client on the charts, I'm completely comfortable predicting that MFT is supported by less than 5% of the client market. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
