On Thu 03 Sep, Julian wrote:
> >
> > Reply-To: exim-users@???
> > Anything more blatant I can add so people only reply to the list and
> > not me as well ?
>
> Require that mailers under win95 adhere to reply-to.
Define "adhere". There was recently a very long and very inconclusive
discussion of this issue on the DRUMS group. The problem is that there
are two different understandings of what reply-to means.
(1) RFC appears to some to state that reply-to is to be used instead of
from when constructing replies. Nothing is implied about "reply to all".
(2) Others believe that reply-to specifies the *only* address(es) that
should be replied to, even after a "reply to all" action is taken.
Various MUAs take different attitudes on this one. I use Pine. I have a
choice of "reply to sender" or "reply to all". I tend to use "reply to
all" out of habit, because normally I want to reply to everyone who has
received a message, in particular if one of the recipients was the list.
I don't know in advance if there's a reply-to (because I don't see it by
default). I try to remember the (few) people whom I know don't want
individual copies and delete them by hand.
The DRUMS discussion rambled on to no general conclusion, but I think it
was clear to all that Reply-To is fatally flawed, and the suggestion was
made that some new headers were needed to specify more clearly what the
author wants to suggest in connection with replies. I forget the details
(I wasn't paying much attention). I expect there will be some action in
this area, but please don't start the discussion again on this list!
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
