Re: Bart's proposal

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Keith's proposal (as we're calling it, since he hasn't actually pronounced
> either of us correct in our interpretations) would change the way MUAs
> implement reply-to-all, but doesn't introduce new syntax.

It would also change how MUAs implement reply-to-author, destroying the
existing semantics of From and Reply-To.

> Dan's proposal changes reply-to-all and labels the change with new syntax,
> but requires knowledge of mailing-list membership on the part of sending
> MUAs in order to operate conveniently.
> My proposal extends both reply and reply-to-all, labels the change, and
> requires no new knowledge in sending MUAs.

Nonsense. Your proposed field requires the same knowledge to set up as
mine does. The difference is that I preserve reply-to-author, while you
destroy it.

> Dan's proposal encourages users to continue using reply-to-all, because a
> simple reply still won't do the job.  I think this is unfortunate.

Hey, Bart, did you know that your MUA has _two_ response functions?
Perhaps you should learn how to use them.

---Dan
Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html