Re: Reply-To header

[Steffen Klemer <masterofheap gmx net>]

Am 2002.02.20 12:32 schrieb(en) Peter Bloomfield:
> On 2002.02.20 05:57 Steffen Klemer wrote:
>> 
>> Am 2002.02.20 00:33 schrieb(en) Peter Bloomfield:
> [ snip ]
>>> Why not use `Reply to Group'?
>> 
>> I don't like that feature to much.
> 
> What's wrong with it? That's precisely what the `List-Post:' header is 
> for! Why make a guess based on the folder the message has found its way 
> to, which can be out of date even when it was once correct?

It works and everything is fine...
But for people like me (every time in hecticness) it would be better to 
selevt it once and let later everything go fine.

It happened more than once that I hit reply instead of reply to group and 
my msg didn't went to the list, but to the sender.

I don't say abandon the function, I only proposed another feature. (and if 
you don't like the thing with the editable default-"To", plz implent at 
least the identity per Mailbox (the guessing isn't always the best 
solution, at least not for me!))

But the longer I think, the better I like the second idea with a preference 
for
"always reply to all" and "alway reply to group"

> 
> In fact, I've toyed with the idea of adding a `List >' submenu to the 
> mailbox index context menu, with items for any of the List-* headers 
> found in the selected message.

That is a great idea. (has any proggi out there a function like this?-balsa 
could be the first one!)
As a maintainer and big user of lists I would use it very often!


cu
/Steffen

-- 
/"\
\ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign    |           Pohl's law:
  X  - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail   | Nothing is so good that somebody,
/ \ - NO MSWord docs in e-mail|    somewhere, will not hate it.