Am 22.03.2013 20:10, schrieb A.L.E.C:
On 03/22/2013 07:53 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
And not only the From: address, but ALL addresses that may appear in the typical headers (Cc:, Sender:, Reply-To:, Mail-Reply-To:, whatever, except the own address and of course by removing dupes).
And not only if To: and Reply-To: are the same, but ALWAYS when "Reply all" has been chosen, no matter if it's a list or a "normal" message. That's what a "Reply all" option promises to (and should) do.
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.
But it's just a desperate und useless try, as I can of course enter all recipient addresses manually anyway. But why should I be forced to do it, if I have a Reply all option?
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.
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...?
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??
At least Roundcube should use it instead of Reply-To.
I digged out a recent discussion in the RC users list, subject "Reply-To issues again". There was a message with a Reply-To: header that clearly pointed to the sender AND to the list (see attached).
Roundcube did (and does still) ignore this Reply-To: header because of even another header: Mail-Reply-To: (set by the list, apparently)
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"...?
Cheers,
Michael Heydekamp Co-Admin freexp.de Düsseldorf/Germany