Re: Understanding response protocols

In <[email protected]> Alan Barrett <[email protected]> writes:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> We need:
>> 1. A header to be set by the list maintainer.
>> 2. A header to be set by the user, to control where replies to list go
>> (and in particular whether he gets a private copy or not).
>> 3. A header to be set by the user to control where personal (non-list)
>> replies go.
>> 
>> And rules to determins which takes priority if they conflict.
>> 
>> I think it is clear that Reply-To is the proper header for #3.

>No, it's not at all clear that "Reply-To:" is the proper header for #3.
>#3 should be separated into cases where "From:" is the proper header,
>and cases where it is not.  "Reply-To:" is currently used for both #2
>and #3 (and is sometimes even used for the subset of case #3 where
>"From:" would have been more appropriate).

Reply-To does not provide the needed flexibility.

You want to say

    "Please reply to the list, and I don't want a personal copy in that
    case. OTOH, if you want to discuss this with me privately off-list,
    then please reply to XXXXXX. Whatever you do, I don't want replies
    sent to the From address, because that is a role account read by
    several people, but this brain-dead Gatesware won't let me change it."

You can't specify all that in Reply-To. Ergo you need (at least) one more
header.

And yes, Gatesware is indeed brain-dead, but notoriously resistant to
being fixed :-( .

-- 
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