[ale] Regarding replies to the list...

[Michael D. Hirsch]

Okay, I went back and re-read the "Reply-to considered harmful" for the 
n-th time, and read bits of the two relevant RFCs:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc822.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1123.txt  (This has nothing about reply-to 
that I could find.)

RFC 822 explicitly states 3 conditions when you might want to set Reply-to, 
the third condition being this:

        A somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their
        own.

IMO that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in and that is exactly 
the reason I like to have the Reply-to header set.

For those of us with mailers that will reply to both the list and the From: 
author, if mailman would put the original Reply-to: header in as the From: 
header I would be completely happy.  Then I could correctly reply to the 
few people I want to write to who don't want to receive email at their 
From: address.

--Michael

On Monday 09 December 2002 02:50 pm, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> On Monday 09 December 2002 01:40 pm, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > From: Geoffrey <esoteric at 3times25.net>
>
> <snip>
>
> > Reply-To: ale at ale.org
>
> <snip>
>
> > You address shows in the FROM: field
> > So in theory, if I select "Reply", it should go to you only. But it
> > currently does not. In Evolution 1.2, if I select "reply to all" it
> > goes only to the list. If I select reply, it goes to the list.
>
> Actually, Evolution is behaving semi-correctly.  The Reply-To: header is
> there and says that reply's should go to the list.  And that is what
> happens for you.
>
> IMO, "reply to all" should go to the list and the sender, which is what
> kmail does, but apparently Evolution does not.  I suspect that Evolution
> behaves this way because that is what Outlook does.  If you are going to
> use an Outlook clone, you are going to get bug-for-bug compatibility.
>
> ;-)
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale