Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA26944; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:09:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:08:57 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA26898; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from info.dsv.su.se (info.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.221]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA26578; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:04:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [130.237.150.138] (jph1.dsv.su.se [130.237.150.138]) by info.dsv.su.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA06340; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:02:31 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: jpalme@mail.dsv.su.se (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199803230719.CAA00177@spot.cs.utk.edu> References: Your message of "Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:55:40 +0100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:57:08 +0100 To: Keith Moore From: Jacob Palme Subject: Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets? Cc: IETF working group on revision of mail standards , Keith Moore At 08.19 +0100 98-03-23, Keith Moore wrote: > > --- Some person, I do not remember whom, proposed a couple of > > months a header field something like this: > > Reply-Sets: > [labeled reply alternatives] > > > Would this be a solution which is more acceptable to you? > > > it has the advantage, that one can easily extend it with new special > > recipient sets if needed. The original standard could only specify > > "author" and "group", and other special sets like "voting", > > "myboss", "mysecretary", "the-president" can be added, either by new > > standards or by users themselves when needed. > > (a) no, as long as it perpetuates the "author" vs. "group" > distinction, it doesn't solve the problem. You don't want a finite > number of labels, you want the author to be able to specify where > replies go without having to label them. Say that any user can put in any labels s/he wants, but that some common labels like "personal" and "group" are standardised? Would that make this solution acceptable to you? You are right that all replies are not best sent to one person or the whole group, but most of them do, so many that people request two variants of the reply command. Your idealistic belief in people who careful scan the recipient list and choose exactly the right recipients for each reply is not based on real user behaviour, and you will not be able to make people behave the way you want with a standard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme