David Gaudine wrote:
> I wouldn't use "reply to all", I'd just CC the one person. But indeed, for
> those who have to choose between "reply" and "Reply to all" and don't want
> to adjust things manually, that problem is there.
How would you do that, though? The most common example of CCing the
person isn't manually adding the header in; it is "reply to all" or "reply to
group" in mutt parlance to get the list in there in addition to the
individual.
> I mentioned earlier that I'd try filtering on "References". That didn't
> work, and basically gave the same problem that you mention; I see the
> messages of everyone who replies to a reply to a reply of my message.
> However, there seems to be an "In-Reply-To" header that's more useful, so
> far it seems to have only the most recent reference.
Yup. Reference is a news header that has been migrated into email. The
email header is In-Reply-To and is only supposed to contain the MSGID to which
it is a reply to. :)
> What all of this seems to mean is, yes, it's possible to have a situation
> where everyone just clicks "Reply" and people who want to see copies in
> their inbox get them and other people don't. But it's not automatic, people
> have to actually know they're supposed to do it that way and then figure out
> how to do it.
True, but the onus is on those who want CCs to ask for them either
manually in their signature or automatically through the use of the
appropriate headers. To presume everyone wants CCs just to catch the ones
that do forces those who do not to filter. It pushes the responsibility and
effort to an unsuspecting third party.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpvgo2w6QBcO.pgp
Description: PGP signature