Message-ID: <19980408103023.A25164@la.tis.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:30:23 -0700
From: Michael Elkins <michael@tis.com>
To: IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: A solution for group reply redirection which everyone might accept?
References: <v04003a00b14f9de69aa1@[130.237.150.138]> <199804080334.XAA02167@spot.cs.utk.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <199804080334.XAA02167@spot.cs.utk.edu>; from Keith Moore on Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 11:34:18PM -0400

On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 11:34:18PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> If the author is allowed to re-define the responder's notion of
> "author" (as in most current implementations of Reply-To), that's not
> a big problem.  If the author wants to create a new context for
> responses and suggest that the discussion be continued in that new
> context, that seems like a Good Thing.  
> 
> But the author should not be given a way to re-define the responder's
> notion of a "group" reply.

So why not keep Mail-Followup-To as the author's suggested directions for
where to group reply to?  If you are saying that it is ok for the author to
suggest where to reply to, why not make this information available to the
client in an automatic way rather than requiring the manual editing of the
message header (which most people will not bother to do).

me