Friday, January 14, 2000, 7:17:54 PM, Thomas wrote:
> 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):
Doing so would dictate that the Reply-to is not set 1/2 the time. :P
> 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.
But this is not always the case. Witness mailing lists with REPLY-TO set.
I do believe you're on at least one that does it, most likely two. You are
aware that I have my reply-to set on each message I send out, right? Do you
see it? ;)
> 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. ;-)
Yeah, that was me quoting RFC822 stating that the MUA should use the
reply-to. This does not translate into *must* and considering it is a matter
of technical flubbage (IE, a missed subject, who really cares? A message sent
the wrong place, that's a fubar) the program should not just assume
considering the strong possibility of people sending messages where they don't
intend due to the hidden nature of REPLY-TO and ESPECIALLY with TB!'s default
behavior of combining username with list address.
> 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.
Until the first time someone sends you a message from the wrong folder
where they do set the reply-to and your message goes where it wasn't intended.
I've had personal mail sent to a public list because I wrote mail in that
folder. The other person's client didn't prompt them nor did it tell them
that it was sending to a different address at all.
> 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.
This is unacceptable. While TB! does have facilities to send directly to
sender I do not *EVER* condone "hit reply-to-all and cull CCs". The whole
reason is because that is the answer from the anti-REPLY-TO crowd. "If you
want to reply to the list, hit group reply." Sure, and after 10 replies half
the list is in the CC list because noone ever trims. Hell, I don't even trim
half the time any more.
> 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? ;-)
See my message to Allie where I explained that little paragraph.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
