Re: the most obvious failure in To-NoReply

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > NR has no way to specify situations where "reply to all" is not sent
> > to a superset of the recipients who would be sent if "reply to author"
> > were used instead.
>
>
> Then NR is broken.

Or alternately: NR may not solve the problem you want to solve.

Depending on how you look at it, NR and MRT are both broken (for 
different reasons), and the absence of some solution(s) to several 
problems associated with replies is also broken.  The question is 
whether, and how, we can get to a significantly less broken state with a 
minimum of pain.

> When I send a message to ietf-822@xxxxxxx, I do _not_
> want followups to be sent to the original reply address. 

Note that even without either MFT or NR, you're free to set Reply-To to 
ietf-822@xxxxxxxx  If the recipient really wants to reply to just the 
author, he can always manually override the To field of the reply.  (and 
if he can't do that, his MUA is broken :)  That's no different than many 
other valid uses of Reply-To: e.g. when someone sends a message and 
wants normal replies to go to his secretary, but a particular recipient 
of that message really does need to send a reply to the message author.