Monday, January 17, 2000, 9:26:45 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Semantic difference. What I meant is the client default, of course.
Then say that. My client is TB!, not Thomas Fernandez. ;P
> 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.
Incorrect. REPLY-TO is a matter of at least RFC822. RFC822 does dictate
what purposes REPLY-TO can be employed for and puts forth acceptable use of
that field.
Further, convention is that there is at least the option for having the
program to prompt. All of the programs I've used save for TB! have prompted
me.
> - 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.
Correct, this is *one* use of RFC822. However, they still should be
prompted about the difference.
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.
Simple. > is a true convention that has been in use for years and years.
Programs are written to acknowledge that convention. It then behooves the
community to teach the non-conformant individuals about that convention of
this culture (along with -- \n, proper quote/reply formatting, and so forth).
The reply-to behavior is not a convention. It is a prompt or an option
for a prompt. It is partially dictated by a formal document (RFC822) and
therefore is closer to a standard than a convention.
The use of >, -- \n, **, //, __ and other such formatting is a convention
of the culture. DATE, FROM and TO/BCC being in the headers is a standard that
must be adhered to. REPLY-TO is declared in that same standard as the other
headers. There is a difference there, right? :)
> 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.
REPLY-TO, set by the list, is not the individual setting it. In that case
it is not "please reply to my reply-to address" it is "This is a list, here is
the list address provided as default." It is not an implicit or explicit
statement to reply to that address. I further believe that a REPLY-TO, set by
an individual, is not an implicit or explicit statement to reply to that
address in all cases and should not be trusted.
What should be trusted, alone, is FROM. That is a required field and
should be a viable address. REPLY-TO could be one of many different things
and to attach any particular implicit/explicitness to it is to cause problems.
> <g> Wouldn't it be a wonderful world instead? ;-)
Given TB!'s nonconformity to the standards, no. Given how software, left
to its own devices, doesn't fulfill the needs of everyone, no.
>>> 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
Yes, it does because the original sender could be doing something
malicious. The fact that noone here can conceive of such a purpose doesn't
mean that it is not there. Furthermore, as stated, TB!'s default behavior
with REPLY-TO is, IMHO, broken and "raising your eyes" is not a viable option
until that behavior is fixed. Quite frankly I feel putting someone's name
with an address not associated with them is a violation of the "no-munging of
headers" rule.
> in some cases. Point of this thread is: Should an email client reply
> to the reply-to address by default, or ask?
Ask with the reply-to as default. That was my original suggestion. You'd
be amazed at how unobtrusive it is. Hell, if someone can say that the
damnedable editor having "Free caret" mode is something that just needs
getting used to then prompting is the same way. I know that in lists with
REPLY-TO set I just hit CNTL-R, ENTER and a reply goes to the list. CNTL-R,
down, RETURN it goes to the sender. On lists that it doesn't have it when I
hit that enter and my text gets mucked I know I have to curse, close the
reply, reply-to-all and cull the CCs.
> For regular mail, I can live with pine's behaviour (question popping
> up only when 'from' and 'reply-to' are not the same),
Exactly. Only when they differ.
> 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.
It isn't annoying. This is coming from someone who doesn't like
assumptions being made and finds a lot of pop-ups annoying. It isn't
questioning my intent, it is clarifying. When you know it is coming you can
use it quite effectively. When you don't know it is coming up it alerts you
to a possible problem.
Unlike the "do you REALLY want to delete this" prompts from Windows which
are ineffective. I know they are coming, I slam the enter key already while
flying on autopilot so it confirms nothing.
--
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
