Re: Understanding response protocols

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Lilly" <[email protected]>
To: "ietf-822" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Understanding response protocols


> > Therefore, it is evident that some further Reply-to-like header (MFT,
MCT
> > or something new) is needed for use with the "Reply-to-List" command
>
> Several UAs implement a "Reply to List" function without such a header
> field; evidently there is no such "need".

Do you know of specific UA that do specifically support "Reply To List"
Common User Interface option?  If so what do they tag on?

Using Outlook Express, it has two reply options:  Replying to your message,
the destination addresses are set as follows:

Action:  Reply to Sender
            To:  [email protected]

Action:  Reply to Sender
            To:  [email protected];  [email protected]
            cc: "Charles Lindsey" [email protected]

The pertinent headers on your original message are:

    From: Bruce Lilly <[email protected]>
    Reply-To: ietf-822 <[email protected]>
    To: ietf-822 <[email protected]>
    Cc: "Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]>
    Sender: [email protected]
    Precedence: bulk
    List-ID: <ietf-822.imc.org>

I know OE is not using the List-ID for a "Reply To Sender" or a "Reply to
All"   It would be nice to have a third "Reply To List" option where it
might use the "List-ID" if available.

But as you say, you don't need it if the List Server or middle-ware or
special UA has a special way of setting the "Reply-to:" field.

Absense of the Reply-To: field, the OE behavior is:

Action:  Reply to Sender
            To:  [email protected]

Action:  Reply to Sender
            To:  [email protected];  [email protected]
            cc: "Charles Lindsey" [email protected]

OE is following standard behavior and also expectations of the mail servers
as well..

Now, this is the $6 million question.   Not to long ago, you were clearly
dead set against a system using the Reply-To:  as a way to force the List
Address within a normal MUA expected "Reply to Sender" concept.

That has not been the case of recent messages with yours.   A Reply to
Sender does how  I shown above because of your own Reply-To: address going
to the list address.

This is clearly the best ergonomic behavior for 99.9% of user expectations
who have no clear view of a "EMAIL" system being used for a
Conference-Messaging Based groupware concept.

Until you have a specific "Reply-To-List" concept,  doing what you have in
your messages today, is in my opinion, the best behavior.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com