Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-moore-mail-nr-fields-00.txt]

[Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I'm curious to know what people think of this idea.

I like the way it behave on legacy clients.  In comparison,
Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To doesn't work if a client isn't
aware of those headers.

I dislike that it require modification to the "submission" phase.  I
think one could argue that it is _more_ difficult to change submission
agents ("sendmail -t") AND all mail clients that do SMTP internally,
than it is to change only mail clients to support the MFT/MRT
approach.

Further, either the proposal or I am missing something: How can the
sender of a messages indicate that she _herself_ doesn't want to
receive any further replies?

I believe avoiding private e-mail copies to yourself is probably the
primary reason people use Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To.  If
NoReply do not support this mode, people will continue to use MFT/MRT.
In that case, it might be better to standardize MFT/MRT instead, but
perhaps the "Not Invented Here" syndrome prevent that.

Thanks,
Simon