On 03/22/2013 09:41 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
It's not so simple. What if it isn't a mailing list post. If sender sets Reply-To. So, Reply-To and From are different. I think that sender intention is clear to not send a reply to both of these addresses. No?
Sure. And if I would want to follow that intention, I'd use the standard reply button.
But if I use the "Reply all" option of the Reply-all button, I don't care about the user's (or the list's) intention, but I do care about my own intention. That's what this option is meant for and what the difference to the function of the standard reply button is. It is ME who wants to reply to all, not the sender. RC currently tries to prevent me from doing that.
No, A difference between is in possibility to send a reply to Cc and To addresses of the original message. Not in the Reply-To header handling.
BTW: Is "Sender:" being respected in RC at all...?
As a source for reply recipients, no.
Should be added, IMO. It's a standardized RFC header.
But, that's another story. Create a ticket.
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used.
In the case of this list for instance, there is no such "senders intention", as the Reply-To: header has been set by the list rather than by the sender, right?
So, it's a list intention, doesn't matter.
It does. Because the list's intention may contradict the sender's intention. See below.
So whose intention should we follow...?
Does not matter whose. It's specified by the message headers.
If I want to make sure to get a reply to one of my list posts to my sender address AND to the list - is there a way at all to set an appropriate Reply-To: header, which will not be changed by Mailman?
I don't know, maybe with Mail-Reply-To set to your address.
How can I set Mail-Reply-To: with Roundcube just for a particular message??
If you set Reply-To, Roundcube will set Mail-Reply-To automatically to the same address.
So, at the start of this poll, you claimed that Reply-To: (i.e. the sender's intention) should be respected no matter what, even if "Reply all" had been chosen.
But if a sender sets Reply-To: to his own AND a list address, the sender's intention may be overridden by the list's intention, if expressed through a Mail-Reply-To: header?
Doesn't sound too logical and consistent to me. A list may always override the sender's intention, but a respondent may not be doing the same by chosing "Reply all"...?
For me it is logical.