[Fwd: Re: [plug] Reply-to headers]

[Bret Busby]

Bret Busby wrote:
> 
> Now, this is where I think it starts to get confusing.
> 
> The header of the message below, as shown in Netscape 4.7, with
> View->Headers->Normal, is
> "Subject:                 Re: [plug] Reply-to headers
>  Resent-Date:             Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:32:04 +0800 (WST)
>  Resent-From:             plug at plug.linux.org.au
>        Date:             Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:34:02 +0800
>        From:             "Brian Tombleson" <Brian at ParadigmIT.com.au>
>          To:             <plug at plug.linux.org.au>
>   References:            1 , 2
> "
> which gives no indication of to where a reply will go, but, as the
> message shows "Resent from" the mailing list, it is logical to assume
> that a reply will go to the list. (maybe the experts know otherwise,
> but, it must be remembered, that we are not all experts, hence the need
> for mailing lists, such as this)
> 
> However, using the Forward facility, as below, shows that a reply will
> go to the originator of the message.
> 
> I think that simplicity is lost.
> 
> Also, I note that the header above, shows that the "Reply To" has been
> deleted from the mailing list.
> 
> I assume that we who wanted the Reply To to overrride, lost, and, the
> people who wanted the Reply To deleted altogether, won, Matt?
> 
> Bret Busby
> ....................
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [plug] Reply-to headers
> Resent-Date: Wed,  9 Aug 2000 16:32:04 +0800 (WST)
> Resent-From: plug at plug.linux.org.au
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:34:02 +0800
> From: "Brian Tombleson" <Brian at ParadigmIT.com.au>
> Reply-To: "Brian Tombleson" <Brian at ParadigmIT.com.au>
> To: <plug at plug.linux.org.au>
> References:
> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008091221480.5889-100000 at salween.golden.wattle.id.au>
> <399111B4.427882EF at durbanet.co.za>
> 
> > I'm using Netscape, and I don't have the problem Garth has. Occasionally
> > a reply defaults to the author rather than the list, but normally to the
> > list.
> 
> This is precisely the reason a standard (any standard) should be reached
> so
> you don't get 'sometimes it does this, and sometimes it does that' ..
> predictable behaviour is my choice, almost regardless of what that
> behaviour
> is.
> 
> The original page that Matt posted a link to explained that (in their
> oppinioned theory): 'reply' should have gone to the individual and
> 'reply to
> all|group' should gave gone to the list.
> 
> The only reason this thread is here is because it does both at different
> times.
> 
> The only reason I can see to differentiate between whether 'reply' goes
> to
> sender or list is either:
>   1. Idiosyncracy with sender's Mail Clients, or
>   2. Manually setting a 'Reply-To' header.
> .. neither of which are within the control of the person responding to a
> message.
> 
> Just my 2c worth.
> 
> - Brian.
> 
> ......................

This gets confusinger and confusinger...

After the email above, when my posting went through the system, it came
back with a different header, to the one displayed for Brian's message.

The header that my message displayed, is
"Subject:             [Fwd: Re: [plug] Reply-to headers]
 Resent-Date:             Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:47:45 +0800 (WST)
 Resent-From:             plug at plug.linux.org.au
       Date:             Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:44:37 +0800
       From:             Bret Busby <bret at clearsol.iinet.net.au>
    Reply-To:             plug at plug.linux.org.au
         To:             plug at plug.linux.org.au"

The notable difference, is that my message header displayed the Reply
To, whereas the header of Brian's message displyed no Reply To. the
Netscape settings are not changed; View->Headers->Normal.

When the Reply To is displayed for some, but not all, messages
distributed by a mailing list, is that what is named munging?
-- 

Bret Busby

......................................