FW: [GLLUG] reply to

[Edward Glowacki]

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 15:10, Jeremy Bowers wrote:
> > 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.

Evolution has exactly those three options, and they are in that order in
the UI menus... =) 

To take this in a slightly new direction, I would advocate that all
mailing list software conform to a standard way of identifying that 1.
the messages it sends are from a list and 2. what the address of that
list is.  Likewise, all email client software should understand these
standards, thereby making the "reply to list" feature trivial to
implement.  Problem solved: all email clients would now have all three
commands available.  Now the user doesn't have to guess where their
message will go, they simply have to decide.  

-ED


-- 
Edward Glowacki				glowack2@msu.edu
GLLUG Peon  				http://www.gllug.org
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
                -- Jules de Gaultier