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

On Sat May 28 2005 00:07, Paul Jakma wrote:

> It's not clear enough though. Eg, lets just quote from the example 
> 2822 gives:

Last time I counted, there were about a dozen examples in 2822. Anyway: 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Mary Smith <[email protected]>
> To: John Doe <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: "Mary Smith: Personal Account" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Saying Hello
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:01:10 -0600
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> 
> This is a reply to your hello.
> ----
> 
>     Note the "Reply-To:" field in the above message.  When John 
> replies
>     to Mary's message above, the reply should go to the address in the
>     "Reply-To:" field instead of the address in the "From:" field.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Clearly this example shows how 'Reply-To' can be used to suggest that 
> author prefers replies to go to their [email protected] mailbox 
> rather than their [email protected] mailbox.

Perfectly legal. When there are multiple ways to do the same thing,
and there are no reasons to prefer one over the others...

> Where things go wrong is when MUAs try to respond to the following:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Mary Smith <[email protected]>
> To: John Doe <[email protected]>
> Cc: Example list <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: "Mary Smith: Personal Account" <[email protected]>,
>  	Example list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Saying Hello
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:01:10 -0600
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> 
> This is a mail to you and the list
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Lots of MUAs will reply to both [email protected] and 
> [email protected] for 'reply'.

That's what the author suggested for responses.  Why do you say
"things go wrong"?
 
> IIRC a suggestion was floated in that last discussion you pointed me 
> at, from circa august last year, that the From field should always be 
> set to the author's preferred mailbox for replies to the author.

Yes, for each individual author who has a mailbox, and who does not
require anonymity.  There is of course nothing in the current specification
to prevent that.

> Would it be an idea to act on this suggestion?
> 
> 1. Specifically, more implementations supporting MFT.

Nobody has yet produced a coherent suggestion along those lines that
gained any sort of consensus.  Keith Moore identified a number of serious
problems with MFT.  So it's highly unlikely.