Carbon Copies (CC's)

[Nick Simicich]

At 12:50 PM 2003-01-19 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:

>Nick Simicich <njs at scifi.squawk.com> writes:
>
> >>That's exactly the problem Mail-Followup-To: strives to fix -- or "List
> >>Reply" buttons in mail user agents. (Some will also use group reply to mean
> >>list reply when they see list headers.)
> >
> > You know?  If all (or even most) mailing lists set reply-to, then most
> > people would be able to run with non-group reply, because individual
> > mail would go to individuals and mailing list mail would go to mailing
> > lists.
>
>No. Reply-To: takes precedence for either function, which is why I'm not
>discussing this further.

(1) It depends on your MUA (2) I was trying to use the same reply function 
for on and off list mail.

You also sent me multiple copies of your reply, which means that you can't 
manage your replies either.

> > There are all sorts of other things you can so, or that various MUAs
> > have done. But the thing that everyone ends up on is group reply, and
> > then editing the headers, but they always forget to edit the headers,
> > and some misinformed purist will always jump on people who suggest
> > that maybe, just maybe, we should follow RFC822 the way it was written
> > and change RFC822.  By the way, I run a couple dozen mailing lists,
> > all have reply-to set, and the false spectre of individual replies
> > going to the group is just that.  It happens once every couple of
> > months, while the piles of extra messages happen every day.
>
>May I ask you to read http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html? It is getting
>adopted by more and more mail software, and it helps address the
>original problem.

Is this in an RFC anywhere?  Supported by any major windows MUA? If not 
maybe it should be, and when it is, then I will consider it as an 
alternative. If not, then I have seen nothing that supercedes the original 
language in RFC822, and I also urge the people who run this list to begin 
inserting reply-to.

mutt, shuriken, nmh, gnus.  I'll bet that all together, they account for no 
more than one in 10 messages I get, and I am on many  technical mailing 
lists inhabited by Unix users.  My experience is that Unix desktop users 
are more likely to use Mozilla than one of the above.  But what you need to 
do is get it into a major Windows mailer. That will happen about 2 years 
after a Standard track RFC is written, and then Outlook will do it wrong 
(they are still replying to sender in some circumstances, last time I checked).

--
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc.  But if it is not all three of Unsolicited,
Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the
hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on
confusion.  If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs at scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!