SL> Incorrect. REPLY-TO is a matter of at least RFC822. RFC822 does dictate
SL> what purposes REPLY-TO can be employed for and puts forth acceptable use of
SL> that field.
I would bet that it does not require a prompt, though, as you say:
SL> Further, convention is that there is at least the option for having the
SL> program to prompt. All of the programs I've used save for TB! have prompted
SL> me.
...that other programs prompt is not at issue. What if the solution
was to NOT prompt, but to offer an easy way to change to other
addresses (or other fields, what have you)? Like, say, a droplist
when editing your message, and you could choose between From:,
Reply-To: or even Cc:?
>> - 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.
SL> Correct, this is *one* use of RFC822. However, they still should be
SL> prompted about the difference.
Why *should* they? Keep in mind that I am not a believer in prompts
at all, that one should be able to set up the default behaviour and
have it work as expected every time.
SL> Simple. > is a true convention that has been in use for years and years.
SL> Programs are written to acknowledge that convention. It then behooves the
SL> community to teach the non-conformant individuals about that convention of
SL> this culture (along with -- \n, proper quote/reply formatting, and so forth).
An aside: if The Bat! strips virtual space, do sigdashes go out
improperly formatted? In other words, do we get <dash><dash><space> or
are we stuck with <dash><dash>?
SL> The reply-to behavior is not a convention. It is a prompt or an option
SL> for a prompt.
Maybe an option for a prompt, but I tell you, I NEVER want to be
prompted for such a ridiculous thing.
SL> It is partially dictated by a formal document (RFC822) and
SL> therefore is closer to a standard than a convention.
Umm, no. If RFC822 mentions that there could be a prompt, it does not
say that there must be a prompt. Therefore, it is not a convention.
SL> I further believe that a REPLY-TO, set by an individual, is not an
SL> implicit or explicit statement to reply to that address in all
SL> cases and should not be trusted.
How do you figure? Why would it be that ANYONE would set a Reply-To
address, and then not want mail to go there? (This has nothing to do
with en-route hacking and modification.)
SL> Quite frankly I feel putting someone's name with an address not
SL> associated with them is a violation of the "no-munging of headers"
SL> rule.
Agreed, but I have to say it's useful on lists. However, many times
it's not relevant and the name should be edited out. So yeah, can the
feature.
>> in some cases. Point of this thread is: Should an email client reply
>> to the reply-to address by default, or ask?
SL> Ask with the reply-to as default.
Don't ask as default, how 'bout that?
SL> That was my original suggestion. You'd be amazed at how
SL> unobtrusive it is. Hell, if someone can say that the damnedable
SL> editor having "Free caret" mode is something that just needs
SL> getting used to then prompting is the same way.
Heh, true. An option, with the current setup as the default, would be
beneficial to most.
SL> On lists that it doesn't have it when I hit that enter and my text
SL> gets mucked I know I have to curse, close the reply, reply-to-all
SL> and cull the CCs.
Hmm, I just have address book entries for these lists, and type in the
list name in the To: field.
>> For regular mail, I can live with pine's behaviour (question popping
>> up only when 'from' and 'reply-to' are not the same),
SL> Exactly. Only when they differ.
Never. ;)
SL> It isn't annoying. This is coming from someone who doesn't like
SL> assumptions being made and finds a lot of pop-ups annoying. It isn't
SL> questioning my intent, it is clarifying.
Set the default behaviour the way you want it, and then it doesn't
need to be clarified. (I think someone said "templates".)
SL> Unlike the "do you REALLY want to delete this" prompts from
SL> Windows which are ineffective. I know they are coming, I slam the
SL> enter key already while flying on autopilot so it confirms
SL> nothing.
The only reason I haven't turned that off yet is because Windows STILL
insists on putting Shift-Deleted things in the Recycle Bin first time,
every time. My deal is, when I really want to delete something:
Shift-Del. (Do you want to recycle? <N>o. Shift-Del)+ Do you want
to delete? <Y>es.
<sigh>
-tom!
--
Hopin' this said *something* useful, [EMAIL PROTECTED] out.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
