Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 04 January 2013 18:41 UTC

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130104085036.0b9fbf88@resistor.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:15:43 -0800
To: Jan Kundrát <jkt@flaska.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <7159fdfa-a556-48df-8497-2f86a11a3711@flaska.net>
References: <7159fdfa-a556-48df-8497-2f86a11a3711@flaska.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA
Precedence: list

Hi Jan,
At 08:44 04-01-2013, Jan Kundrát wrote:
>I'm struggling to come up with the best approach 
>for designing the "reply" feature in Trojita. As 
>far as I know, there's no single "best 
>practices" document to follow (and many "XYZ 
>considered harmful" ones and an interesting one about how Evolution works [1]).

I read the following in RFC 5322:

   'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es)
    to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.'

You message did not contain a "Reply-To:" 
field.  As such I am left will the following choices:

  (i)   Reply to the author

  (ii)  Reply to the mailing list

  (iii) Reply to the author and the mailing list

I am replying to you and copying the message to 
the mailing list.  It is a personal decision and not a "best practice".

>  Here's what I'd like to do:
>
>- Always offer multiple ways to reply. These 
>actions will be represneted by an expandable 
>button (i.e. a button with an arrow on the right 
>which performs the "reasonable thing" by default 
>but allows you to click the arrow to see the other actions).
>
>- The rules for picking up the recipients will be the following:
>
>1) If there's a List-Post header and its value 
>is not set to "NO" (or an equivalent) and 
>there's at least one mailto: URL in there, the 
>"Reply to List" is enabled and listed as the 
>default option. When user selects this action, 
>all of the Sender, From, Reply-To, Cc and Bcc are ignored.

Ok, you are using "List-Post:" to identify 
whether the reply to the list is possible.

>2) "Reply All" option is always available and 
>will generate a list of recipients using the following rules:
>
>  - All addresses in the message's From and 
> Reply-To will be used in the "To" field
>  - All addresses in the message's To will be in the Cc
>  - All addresses in the message's Cc will be in the Cc
>  - All addresses in the message's Bcc will be in the Bcc
>
>After this is complete, a list will be "sanitized":
>  - Duplicate enteries in each To/Cc/Bcc are be removed
>  - Addresses already in To are removed from Cc and Bcc
>  - Addresses already in Cc are removed from Bcc
>
>The List-Post and the Sender headers are ignored 
>when doing the Reply-All thing.

The Bcc would be to your address.  It's like 
replying to yourself.  The "To" is similar if 
your address is in there.  I could remove it or, 
if my MUA has the option, set a preference.

If there is a "Reply-To:" I don't use the 
"From:".  If the "Reply-To:" is set by the 
mailing list I could use the "From:" if I would 
like the reply to go to all addresses.

>The "Reply All" is the second candidate for a 
>default (i.e. the default when "Reply List" is not available).
>
>
>3) "Private Reply" option is always available 
>and produces a message with the following recipient(s) in the "To" field:
>
>  - If the message contains a Reply-To, each of 
> those which are at the same time *not* listed 
> in any List-Post addresses are used. If the 
> resulting set is non-empty, the From header is 
> ignored. This means that any address in the 
> Reply-To which is also listed in the List-Post 
> is silenty ignored and anything not in the List-Post is used.
>  - The Sender header is always ignored.
>  - If the recipients list is empty at this 
> point, everything from the From field is used.
>  - If the resulting set contains more than one 
> address, the duplicates are eliminated.

Ok.

There was a discussion about Bcc (see thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg00112.html 
). There may be some good advice in there.

Regards,
-sm

[ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA Jan Kundrát
Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA SM
Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA Keith Moore
Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA Ned Freed
Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA Dave Crocker
Re: [ietf-822] Different "replying" modes in a MUA Keith Moore