Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id AAA18415; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:05:28 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:05:26 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from dogie.macc.wisc.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id AAA18403; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:05:24 -0400
Received: by dogie.macc.wisc.edu;
          id AA13900; 5.57/42; Tue, 19 Sep 95 23:05:20 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 23:05:20 -0500
From: Eric Norman <ejnorman@macc.wisc.edu>
Reply-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <9509200405.AA13900@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Two reply commands

> are only two reasonable ways to reply to a message.  Selecting
> addresses from a list is not hard work.  It's not as if the users
> had to retype them.

Here's a prediction.  Within a few years the UAs of choice are going
to present the addresses in the headers as (HTMLspeak coming)
<input type=checkbox value=address ...> and a "reply" button.

Assuming that's the case, any arguments about whether you're asking
the user to do extra work in the normal case (which it seems a lot
of these are) don't mean much.  All you're really arguing about is
which address(es) is initially checked.

I'm not sure, though, whether this method of presentation will encourage
users to think more about where they're sending their reply.

-- Eric Norman