>Which RFC says ``Thou shalt have separate "Reply to Sender", "Reply to
>List"[1], and "Reply to All" buttons''?
>
>[1] which, of course, really means "Reply to Recipient", but that
>action only makes sense when the To: address is a mailing list, so
>better to say "Reply to List".
Well, okay, I suppose if people aren't going to bother to do anything with
the information provided by the RFC-compliant servers, there's not a lot we
can do about that. As for this particular issue, I think it's a much
bigger pain that all mailing list software handles Reply-To in a different
way. As long as they either all honored Reply-To or all threw it out, this
wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.
I don't think it would be too hard to come up with a "baseline" standard of
what a mail client should do. I'm sure people would claw and scratch over
just what would go in the standard, but as a wise man once said "Better to
have a bad standard than no standard at all". There is, after all, some
basic level of functionality that all SMTP MUAs have (they all talk SMTP,
for starters); why not build on that?
shag
