On Monday 13 June 2016 11:28:00 Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > On 6/13/16, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > > Le sextidi 26 prairial, an CCXXIV, Tanstaafl a écrit : > >> This is why Reply-To-List is the way to reply when engaged in a > >> mailing list. > >> > >> If your client doesn't have this, then maybe it is time to consider > >> changing. > > > > I am not sure what you are aiming at. If "Reply-To-List" is supposed > > to be a > > message header, as the typography, then you can observe that it is > > not present in most of the mails on this mailing-list. > > > > If you are referring to a MUA command, then first let me remind you > > that MUA > > commands are not standardized > > Am coming into this whole conversation from the backend side (last in, > first out :) ). This, a standardized reply-to-list feature, sounds > like a great advocacy point to be followed up on.... > > Perhaps within each of the more prominent "MUA" developer forums, at > least? > > It's a great +1 selling point for email [clients/packages] that wish > to expand their user base, at least or perhaps more especially, among > the more technically savvy. > > Just thinking out loud... :) > > Cindy :)
And I am not sure that this tempest in a teapot is all about, the older kmail that I use and the older TBird that I have unwillingly used way back up the logbook now, both have a reply-to-list button. This is a list and I use that button to start a reply. So what is/was the actual perceived problem that started this bandwitch waster? Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
