Re: mail-followup-to / mail-copies-to

On Thu May 26 2005 16:26, Paul Jakma wrote:

> However, if I would suggest this "list-reply" functionality should be 
> taken as "reply in a list context"

One problem is defining precisely what that means, in a way which is
likely to reach consensus.

> This MUA also ignores From/Reply-To when "reply in list context" is 
> used.

That strikes me as equivalent to saying "screw you, I'm going to
completely ignore your stated request as well as the relevant standards
and do something different for spite".

> > "Only to list" really has to mean "only to list".  If there were a 
> > hypothetical way for a message originator to cause a recipient's 
> > MUA to do something else for "reply only to list", matters would be 
> > far worse than now (I think Keith Moore made that observation last 
> > year).
> 
> I would disagree that the list-reply functionality of some MUAs means 
> "reply /only/ to list". One of more popular MUA which implements 
> list-reply supports this view (as it will take MFT into 
> consideration).

The problem with that is that it leads to nasty surprises; an invisible
(non-standard, not displayed) header field changes the way a function
works, with no warning to the user.
 
> As you point out above, Reply-To would suggest a preference for both 
> 'public' and 'private' replies, which is /not/ quite the preference I 
> /really/ want to indicate to others, or anyone else like me who 
> prefers to receive direct copies on list replies and any subsequent 
> replies in a thread. (And the difference is critical to me, even if i 
> fail to convince anyone here of the need for extra standards work, I 
> wont be using Reply-To, because of limitations/dangers in its use in 
> a list context).

Beware of some things that you may read; there are bogus claims that
"Reply-To prevents direct responses to an author" -- that is simply
untrue.  A moment's thought should convince you that given a message:

  From: [email protected]
  Reply-To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected]

nothing prevents you from sending a response to any of those
mailboxes, or indeed to [email protected].  Now it may
be the case that *some* MUAs lack a single-key/click/whatever
"reply-to-author(s)" function, but that is an implementation issue
with those MUAs -- there certainly are several MUAs that do have such
a function -- and in no way results from some putative evil
characteristic of the Reply-To field.

> > You can try to convince MUA developers to provide a set of 
> > response options that includes "where the author suggested" -- 
> > maybe some will, maybe some won't (that also of course applies to a 
> > new proposal, but encouraging support for a standard mechanism may 
> > be easier to get across).
> 
> Well, my preferred MUA is Pine. There is 0 chance of persuading the 
> Pine developers to add support for such things without something that 
> is to make it to standards track.

No need. Pine already provides the option for a user to reply to the
author(s) (From field) or where the author(s) suggested (Reply-To
field) or to "group" and/or to any mailbox in the users address book or
which the user can type.

> So is there any answer? Without wishing to have you prejudice your 
> stance on the question(s), would you be able to suggest which avenues 
> would the most fruitful to investigate?

I'd first have to see a definition of that "list context" that is
somehow distinctive from any other "context" and which makes some
sort of sense given the fact that -- no matter what -- a respondent
is going to have to decide where he wants to send responses.

> Am I right in thinking this is where I draw up a draft, eg one 
> focused solely on the issue of affecting mailbox selection in "list 
> context" replies? (Or would it be better to first answer these 
> questions here, in list email?).

Up to you.  Unless you have a very clear idea of the problem and
the breadth of possible solutions, and have carefully considered
the implications, a draft may be premature.

> Initially I tried whining on the mailling list concerned "Please, use 
> reply-all like $DEITY intended - i like to get direct mail for 
> replies and threads i'm involved in". Replies ranged from:
> 
> - Why could you possibly want a direct copy?
> - So we're supposed to remember every person's preference when we
>    reply?
> - Your fault for using Pine, use Mutt
> - Set a Mail-Followup-To header.
> - Oh stop whining paul
> - Why dont you just filter based on In-Reply-To and/or References and
>    create the extra copy yourself?
> 
> The more I whinge, the more beer gets spilled on me 'accidently' at 
> LUG meets. (And recently things have taken a turn for the worse, the 
> empty glasses now also get thrown at me). :)

Sounds like the root of the problem is MUAs that implement the "spiteful"
stance noted earlier.  Maybe a draft along the lines of "MUAs that do
not respect standard field semantics considered harmful" might raise
awareness.  Whether or not that root problem will be fixed is another
matter...