Hi Steve,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:45:24 -0800GMT (15/01/2000, 08:45 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Can't sentence the user to a perennial popup confirmation to deal with
>> possible exceptions to an overwhelming rule. Isn't that taking your never
>> assume philosophy a bit too far ..... to the point where you're shooting
>> yourself in the foot? :)
SL> Nope. There is a choice there that has to be made, why should the
SL> computer assume which address to send to?
How about following conventions in the mailing culture being the
reason why? ;-) Here is what I mean (and I am not as good in wording
as you are):
1.) Reply-to means "reply to". If I send you an email and my from addr
is different from my reply-to addr, I am telling you that I want you
to reply to my reply-to addr. That's the common sense approach.
2.) There is some kind of formal approach but I won't bore you with
RFC's (as I won't stand a chance against you anyway). Wasn't it on
this list a few days back, something about "should reply to the
reply-to address". "Should" is not "must", but this is certainly a
de-facto standard. ;-)
My opinion on this is therefore: The reply-to address is the default
for replying. I don't want a pop-up window, as I don't want a pop-up
window for a missing subject. It is the same case for me.
I understand you would like to see the same behaviour as pine: if from
and reply-to are not the same, the question "Use reply-to addr instead
of the from addr [Y]/N?" comes up.
If I want to reply to the from addr (and I wouldn't know why, except
on mailing lists sometimes), I can currently hit "reply all" insteazd
of "reply" and delete the cc's. I don't know whether this is standard
behaviour for a mail client (I fail to see the logic behind it), but
it works for me.
>> BTW, Nick did bring up a valid point about simply looking at the To:
>> address before hitting send. I see that in a similar way as checking to
>> make sure there's a subject before sending. TB! is a little unorthodox in
>> that it will put the senders name and the reply to address together in the
>> To: field. If that confuses the user then the user may turn it off.
SL> I'd love to know how. I don't see a checkbox for it. Wait, I bet it is
SL> another #$^#$^$#%ing macro. Nope, a freaking checkbox this time. I wish
SL> RITLABS would stop dicking around and do the configuration right. Jeez.
Do you mean the awkwardly-worded checkbox "Do NOT use FROM name for
REPLY-TO address" in Account/Properties/Templates/Replies? Or do you
mean just turing off the from or to addresses in the Editor window
under the View menu command? ;-)
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.39 Beta/1
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
on a Pentium II/350 MHz.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
