Allegedly, on or about 17 April 2017, Joe Zeff sent:
BTW, when I started to compose this, Thunderbird wanted to send it
only to the poster, not the list. Odd.
I'm using Evolution, an old one at the moment. When I hit reply I get a
requester popping up asking:
| Send private reply? |
| You are replying privately to a message which arrived via |
| a mailing list, but the list is trying to redirect your |
| reply back to the list. Are you sure you want to proceed? |
| o Do not ask me again |
| o Always reply Reply-To: for mailing lists. |
| Reply Privately Cancel Reply to List |
I can't remember whether it's always had that reaction. So I don't know
if any new mailing list headers have changed my mail clients behaviour,
or whether it's always done that. I definitely don't recall being
questioned when using an even older version of Evolution.
NB: It's possible to distinguish list mail, because of lists adding
extra headers. An ordinary mail can use reply-to headers, and not
having anything to do with lists (so, by itself, it's not a good
deciding factor). Such as you may have posted to sales(a)example.com, and
a specific person may have replied to you, and added a reply-to address
to make sure your next reply goes where they want it to. And my email
client lets me easily type one into the message editor window.
For many years the behaviour of mail clients was to regard the presence
of a Reply-To header to be an override, and that's where your replies
went to, without being questioned about it. There's sense in that
behaviour, as many people are quite clueless at using their software,
and need to have most of the work done for them.
Some clients had a separate private reply button to let the user make a
decision, ahead of time, when dealing with list mail.
Some clients had a separate reply-all button to do the opposite (do not
reply privately). Though, the reply-all feature was different on
different clients. Some made it a use the reply-to header as a reply to
a list function, some took it to mean send a reply to every address in
the TO or CC header (for users doing mailing lists, without a list
server), or reply to the FROM and REPLY-TO headers (so you reply to a
list and directly to the author). So the reply-all button has been a
bit of a bastard. You have to know what your client would do with it, I
can't advise someone what their client will do with it, and there's
plenty of email disasters where someone's hit reply all with a snarky
comment about a dumb post, and everyone gets to see it.
Some clients provide a separate reply to group or list button, to give
the user a clear button to press to do what their want, and without
getting any further "do you want to...?" pop-ups.
There's been endless debates about how mailing lists should work,
whether lists adding reply-tos is mangling, or that it's just common
sense to add the header when the list is meant to be used by replying in
public (where private replies wreck the usefulness of the list).
There's arguments on both sides, and different mailing clients make
using lists awkward in different ways, but I'm firmly in the camp of
auto-adapting messages to suit the expected use of the list. I've seen
too many forums where there's endless posts asking the same question,
because none of the previous replies with answers were posted publicly.
My mail client sort of fits my requirements, as I am asked what to do,
and whether to make it a permanent arrangement, without me having to
wade through the programs preferences. But, more usefully, to me, it
also has "reply" and "group reply" buttons, though no "private
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
Give a man an inch, and he thinks he's a ruler.