FW: [GLLUG] reply to
Wed, 15 May 2002 15:10:17 -0400
Edward Glowacki wrote:
> I'm well aware of the UI issues here, but the mailing list doesn't have
> any control over the UI,
I'm defining the user interface of the mailing list software as the
emails it sends back. I shouldn't notice any UI here, except that there
are different UI's for different mailing list software. So I'm going
beyond a GUI-widget definition of UI.
> If you read the link that Dennis sent, it explains what the reply-to is
> usually used for and why it's bad to overwrite it.
Yes, I have; that's why I'm able to disagree with it. It's correct as
far as it goes, but the real world cannot be ignored when living in the
> So really, there are 3 distinct actions that can be taken:
> - Reply to sender (using reply-to: or from:, in that order)
> - Reply to list (to: list-address, ignoring all other addresses)
> - Reply to all (reply to sender + all cc: and to: addresses)
> A "reply" (with no "to xxxx") should be simply a shorthand within the
> mail client that corresponds to one of these three options, or it could
> be safely omitted in favor of providing the explicit choice somewhere
> within the reply functionality.
As Ben observes, what mail client does all three? Perhaps all mail
clients are broken this way; I definately see three verbs here. Given
that there is a difference of opinion here between intelligent people
(I'm willing to stipulate your intelligence, I hope you're willing to do
likewise), this might be the most reasonable explanation.