FW: [GLLUG] reply to

[Jeremy Bowers]

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 
real world.

> 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.