> Date: 2005-08-26 17:44 > From: Peter Dambier <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: IETF General Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Reply to: peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx N.B.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > No, what needs to happen if we collectively decide we don't want the > > current behavior is that the mailinglist software sets a "reply-to" > > header, so when you hit "reply" or "group reply" your reply is sent > > with the list in the "To:" field and nothing else. This used to work > > well, not sure if modern clients handle this correctly, though. Try to > > reply to this message to see what happens. One important nit: Reply-To is an originator field (RFC 2822) and should never be forged by somebody or something (e.g. list expander) other than the originator. Mailing lists have the List-Post field (RFC 2369) available for mailing list use, e.g.: List-Post: <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Great, it works! Except of course when some people (ahem!) set Reply-To to an individual mailbox, forcing respondents to use a reply-all function to reach the discussion list (with a copy to the specified mailbox) if the optional List-Post field is missing... It is unsurprising that Reply-To functions in that manner; it is an explicit purpose of the field dating back at least to RFC 724 (May 1977): 3) Reply-to: This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three different uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mailboxes and therefore wish to indicate an alternate machine address. In the second case, an author may wish additional persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, responses; responders should send their replies to the "Reply-to:" mailbox(es). More interesting is a case such as text-message teleconferencing in which an automatic distribution facility is provided and a user submitting an "entry" for distribution only needs to send their message to the mailbox(es) indicated in the "Reply- to:" field. "text-message teleconferencing" is a quaint reference to mailing lists. > Date: 2005-08-26 23:46 > From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I really hate lists with "reply-to" pointing to the list. > I know when I want to reply to the list, and when I want to reply > individually to the sender. When reply-to points to the list, it is > extremely difficult with most mailers to send a reply to the originator. Kmail, Evolution, and Sylpheed each have options for sending a response to the message author directly, and Pine prompts for a user decision. For others, selection from a list or copy-and-paste often suffice. I won't try to characterize "most" UAs, as I haven't examined all of them, but if a particular one lacks a feature, the most effective ways to remedy the problem are to contact the supplier or, failing a suitable enhancement, to switch to a UA that does provide the desired functionality. Certainly there are plenty of products available. As noted in RFC 724 and its successors, there are several reasons for use of the Reply-To field; clearly neither the field nor its uses are new. The lack of a facility for dealing with messages using the Reply-To field for its intended purpose is a serious defect in an MUA. > Date: 2005-08-27 02:16 > From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > My "astonishment factor" was worse than the small difficulty > to copy and paste From when I know that I have to be careful. Reply-To is a standard field and ought to be visible when viewing the original message [1]. In any event, the To field of the response ought to be clearly visible. In either case, if not, see above re. effective ways to remedy UA problems. ---- 1. Part of the problem is UAs which suppress message header fields, caused by the proliferation of "noise" fields in the message header (initially SMTP "Mail-From", subsequently renamed "Received", and now including a large number of others). There is a series of drafts describing a backwards-compatible extension to the Internet Message Format to rectify that problem. See draft-lilly-extensible-internet-message-format-p01-00 and related parts p02-p04. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf