On 18.01.2014 05:51, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2014-01-17 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku kaz@kylheku.com wrote:
The Reply, Reply All both go to the list, empty CC. The Reply List function does the same thing.
I'd expect the same behavior from anything else. Mutt, Pine, Elm, T-Bird, Squirrelmail, MS Outlook 2010, what have you.
What crap. If all of these buttons 'should do the same thing', what pray tell is the point of having them?
'Reply' should honor the message's 'Reply-To' setting.
'Reply-All' should do just that - reply to ALL recipients.
The RCU list is the only recipient, though. That's how "this kind of list" works.
Reply All should also honor Reply-To: IMHO.
Example:
Suppose that Secretary Suzy sends Jack an e-mail, with Reply-To: set to Boss Bob, and there is a Cc: to Amy.
From: Secretary Suzy
Reply To: Bob Boss
To: Jack
Cc: Amy
Jack hits Reply All, and the mail should go To: Boss Bob in lieu of Secretary Suzy, yet preserve the Cc: Amy:
From: Jack
To: Bob Boss
Cc: Amy
I.e. Reply-To: just means "in any form of replying, substitute this address for the sender".
'Reply-To-List' should only reply to the list, and only when the proper list header(s) is(are) there. If there are no list headers, 'Reply-To-List' should do nothing.
It could figure out the mailing list identity by scanning the headers of the thread. The message in question might not have list headers, but it could be a followup to something (directly or via a chain of of multiple ancestors) which does have list headers.
Then the list address from that ancestor's headers could be searched for in the current message's list of recipients. If that address is there, then the message can be deemed to be a discussion item for that list, and "Reply To List" can apply.