Hallo Steve,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:50:02 -0800 GMT (18.01.2000, 00:50 +0800 GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> Uhm, no. *YOU* should reply to the destination that is fitting the
SL> content of the message at hand. The *client* should default that to be the
SL> reply-to. There is a *BIG* difference between the two statements. I think
SL> the moderators here will back me up on that one. ;)
Semantic difference. What I meant is the client default, of course.
>> We agree that "should" and "must" is not the same. I also couldn't find a
>> "must" for quoting the way we do.
SL> No, this a different matter completely.
I don't think so. Both are not regulated by the RFC's or whereever,
and it is only common agreemens - conventions - that make us "do it"
one way or another.
SL> Mailing List REPLY-TOs are set to provide the default behavior for
SL> the user as the default. It was also introduced to get around the
SL> reply-to-all problem where people would whack that button, not
SL> trim and in a few replies the mailing list software is moot since
SL> everyone is on the CC list.
OK, this is a point about mailing lists. But more generally, reply-to's
are a way of telling the recipient: "hey, reply to another address
than this". I used this on my Yahoo account. The procedure was as
follows:
- People sent messages to my regular account.
- While I was travelling, I pop-checked my regular account.
- when I replied, my 'from' addr was yahoo, but I wanted people to
reply to my reg acct, so that was the reply-to addr in my yahoo
set-up.
- When I was back home, I didn't check my yahoo account, as everybody
was supposed to send anything to my reg account only anyway.
>> Again I see you contracdicting yourself. In another thread, your
>> laconic response was, educate the sender of that unconventional email
>> about the conventions!
SL> No, I don't. One is a true convention, the other is not.
Aha. Would you kindly elaborate, as I don't seem to agree.
SL> You're mistaking the reply-to from a mailing list as something to
SL> be followed rather than a convenience to provide the default
SL> behavior.
Yup, I do. :-) Why would the reply-to addr be different if there is no
point in advising this different addr? "Please reply to my 'reply-to'
addr" is an implicit (maybe even explicit) statement I make when there
are different addresses.
>> 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> <SARCASM>
SL> What a sad, sad world it is for you to only get email from people from
SL> TB!.
SL> </SARCASM>
<g> Wouldn't it be a wonderful world instead? ;-)
>> 1.) Teach the original sender, 2.) Check where you send a mail to by
>> raising your eyes. ;-)
SL> See sarcasm above.
Does not apply to point 1. :-P
But I'm not really serious, I'm only following your line of argument
in some cases. Point of this thread is: Should an email client reply
to the reply-to address by default, or ask?
For regular mail, I can live with pine's behaviour (question popping
up only when 'from' and 'reply-to' are not the same), because msot
people dont' use different addresses in these two fields. OTOH, it can
be really annoying when you are on ML's. Thus, it should be possible
to turn the pop-up dialogue off, maybe on a per-folder basis.
--
Cheers,
Thomas mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.39 Beta/1
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
using an Intel Celeron 366 Mhz, 128MB RAM
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
