Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA26366; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 18:59:37 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 18:59:36 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA26348; Fri, 22 Sep 1995 18:59:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199509222259.SAA26348@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1062; Sat, 23 Sep 95 00:59:10 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 8977; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 00:59:10 +0200 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 00:56:58 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: UA reply commands To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, Keith Moore In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:22:59 -0400 from moore@CS.UTK.EDU On Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:22:59 -0400 Keith Moore said: >So while I don't want us to define too much UA behavior in 822bis, I'm >sympathetic to the idea that UAs should encourage recipients to make an >explicit decision about which of several addresses to send a reply to, >when replying to a message with multiple recipients. As a user, I would categorically refuse to use such a UA. 95% of my replies go to the person who sent me the message. 4.x% go to "all". If I have to select explicitly from a list, I am wasting precious time that could be used typing the text of the next message. And it adds up when you reply to hundreds of messages a day. Eric