Re: Understanding response protocols

In <[email protected]> Paul Jakma <[email protected]> writes:

>But that's very configuration intensive. (Just as for the Reply-To 
>solution). "I like to be copied on wide-replies" tends to be a global 
>preference, it shouldn't need per-list configuration - just something 
>you set once in your MUA and leave be (maybe on very rare occassions 
>editing the header when composing an email, when it doesnt suit).

>I'd still love a Foo-Copy-Me type header, much easier and clearer. 
>But seems I wont get it. :(

Well, as MFT is currently implemented, either it gets filled in by the
mailing list administrator (according to whatever the "list policy" is),
or by the original poster - something like

    Mail-Followup-To: [email protected],[email protected]

For a man who wants personal as well as list replies. But to provide that
funtionality conveniently requires the poster's MUA to be configured with
a list of known mailing lists, and how the MFT is to be formed for each.

It would be better if there were a couple of keywords so you could say

    Mail-Followup-To: poster,list

and configure that for all lists you subscribe to.

That presumes the MUA generating replies can figure out what 'poster'
means (easy - use the Reply-To/From address) and what 'list' means (not so
easy if there is no List-Post field).

Actually, that is all beginning to look quite like the Mail-Copies-To
header sometimes used in News.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5