FW: [GLLUG] reply to

Brian Hoort hoortbri@msu.edu
Wed, 15 May 2002 15:15:55 -0400

How does Evolution know what email addresses are to lists?

At 02:54 PM 5/15/2002, Edward Glowacki wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 14:26, Jeremy Bowers wrote:
> > Again though, you're telling me to change how I do business, by
> > possibly changing my entire client for this *one* thing, which may not
> > on the balance still be a good thing. In general, telling the user what
> > to do is backwards, and should be reserved as a last-resort measure,
> > when they ask the impossible.
>Actually, I said for you to either change email clients *or* request a
>proper reply-to-list feature be added to your current email client.
>Option #2 does not require that you change the way you do business.
> > I'm not really trying to go to bat on the Reply-To issue; I don't much
> > care, except dammit, I have to change the headers again. The meta-issue
> > does concern me, though: Balancing UI the user expects, versus
> > functionality, versus correctness.
>I'm well aware of the UI issues here, but the mailing list doesn't have
>any control over the UI, that's the domain of your email client.  If the
>mailing list provides the functionality and does it correctly, then it's
>doing its job.  Now if your email client doesn't provide the options you
>expect or in the way that you expect them, then the email client is
> > Why, by the way, would adding a Reply-To header remove your
> > functionality at all? Given
> >
> > From: User1@something
> > CC: Person2@something, List1@something
> > Reply-To: List1@something
> >
> > "reply" should go to List1@something, "reply to sender" should go to
> > "User1@something", bypassing the Reply-To, and "Reply to all" should go
> > to everything there.
>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.  For example, if I
>send messages from glowack2@glowack2.user.msu.edu (my laptop), and you
>"reply" or "reply to sender", I'll never receive the message because my
>laptop can't receive email.  But if I set the reply-to address to
>glowack2@msu.edu and you hit "reply" or "reply to sender", I will
>receive the message through my normal MSU account.  Now if linux-user
>goes and forces reply-to to the list address, all you are left with to
>do a private reply is my non-functional from: address.
>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.
>Edward Glowacki                         glowack2@msu.edu
>GLLUG Peon                              http://www.gllug.org
>Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
>                 -- Jules de Gaultier
>linux-user mailing list