Hi Steve,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:28:51 -0800GMT (17/01/2000, 16:28 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb 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):
SL> Doing so would dictate that the Reply-to is not set 1/2 the time. :P
That's another thing, but one on which we agree: if there is no
reply-to address, the reply should go to the from addr. I would even
assume that's most of the cases. ;-)
>> 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.
SL> But this is not always the case. Witness mailing lists with REPLY-TO set.
SL> I do believe you're on at least one that does it, most likely two. You are
SL> aware that I have my reply-to set on each message I send out, right? Do you
SL> see it? ;)
But this is exactly the point: I should reply to the list, that's why
the list server replaces you original reply-to with the list address.
Your own reply-to is known to the server, as you said you set it, and
if the server wants to reject your message for whatever reason, it
will use your reply-to address. Correct behaviour IMHO.
>> 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. ;-)
SL> Yeah, that was me quoting RFC822 stating that the MUA should use the
SL> reply-to. This does not translate into *must* and considering it is a matter
We agree that "should" and "must" is not the same. I also couldn't
find a "must" for quoting the way we do. But I do agree that quoting
the way we do (in emails, as opposed to print media, to use your
example) is correct. It is a convention, very much like replying to
the reply-to address is the convention. Even if given the choice.
SL> of technical flubbage (IE, a missed subject, who really cares? A
SL> message sent the wrong place, that's a fubar) the program should
SL> not just assume considering the strong possibility of people
SL> sending messages where they don't intend
Again I see you contracdicting yourself. In another thread, your
laconic response was, educate the sender of that unconventional email
about the conventions! So, educate the people who send you emails to
put only that address in the reply-to header that they want you to
reply to. As a matter of fact, they can check it (enable View/Reply-To
in the editor window) before sending the mail, it's a matter of
raising the eyeballs a few degrees. ;-P
SL> due to the hidden nature of REPLY-TO and ESPECIALLY with TB!'s default
SL> behavior of combining username with list address.
That's indeed on the weird side, but was discussed earlier.
>> 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.
SL> Until the first time someone sends you a message from the wrong folder
SL> where they do set the reply-to and your message goes where it wasn't intended.
1.) Teach the original sender, 2.) Check where you send a mail to by
raising your eyes. ;-)
SL> I've had personal mail sent to a public list because I wrote mail in that
SL> folder. The other person's client didn't prompt them nor did it tell them
SL> that it was sending to a different address at all.
Oh, *you* made a mistake? Sorry then, I'll take my response back.
;-)
>> I can currently hit "reply all" insteazd
>> of "reply" and delete the cc's.
SL> This is unacceptable.
I agree, it was a work-around and has in the meantime been fixed
(crtl-F4: reply to "from" addr instead of "reply-to").
SL> See my message to Allie where I explained that little paragraph.
Got it. Misunderstood your message the first time.
--
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
