Racer X writes:
> >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.
Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs
don't include the concept of "Reply to Recipient". Why? Because, on
the face of it, it looks like a stupid idea. Why would you want to
reply to yourself? You wouldn't. But you *might* want to Reply To
List, which is implemented the same way.
> 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?
Right, well, we can do it ourselves. Who else do we need to convince?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
