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

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:

>> 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...

Agreed.

>> 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"?

Sorry, but you seem too knowledgeable to not be aware of the 
potential problems of using Reply-To in public mails. Do I have to 
spell it out? (I thought I already mentioned the Reply-To risk).

> 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.

If use of Reply-To as a way to indicate ones own mailbox were 
deprecated, and instead it were mandated that From should always be 
the author's mailbox, then Reply-To would be more suitable for the 
purpose I need.

Anonymity is another matter I guess.

>> 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.

Could you answer the question rather than my footnote? :)

I have at no time advocated the MFT header, it's presence in my mails 
should not be construed as advocacy of it, nor would I advocate it 
standardisation. :)

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[email protected]	[email protected]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
If happiness is in your destiny, you need not be in a hurry.
 		-- Chinese proverb