Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!adm!OLE@sri-nic.arpa
From: OLE@sri-nic.arpa (Ole Jorgen Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: reply-to
Message-ID: <921@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 19-Nov-86 00:25:26 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.921
Posted: Wed Nov 19 00:25:26 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Nov-86 02:32:09 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 21


Jakob,
	I'll have to totally disagree with you on this, Scandinavian
loyalty or not. The issue of who your reply goes to is a matter of
taste and choice depending on the circumstances. I believe it SHOULD
NOT be made part of any protocol, but SHOULD be an option in your
local User Agent. When I started to reply to your message a couple of
minutes ago, my user agent (MM) very cleverly asked me if I wanted to
reply to "sender only" or "all". I think this (thanks to Mark
Crispin!) is exactly the right thing to do. Why add new fields to RFC
822 when you can have smarter user agents?

	I assure you that I am not the only person who has been burnt
by the "reply" function over the last ten years or so. Sometimes you
want your reply to go to "all", while other times you definitely don't.
The trouble is that so many user agents decide what "The Right Thing"
is for you and don't give you the option.


Ole
-------