Jordan Brown writes:
make everybody happy
That's a longer way of expressing "right." I'm *still* not interested in that.
I can only hope that whatever standards develop make both "reply to author" and "reply to all" convenient.
No MUA is going to remove either of those functions.
(And that's another of the key items: the "Reply-To: <list>" configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that seems just plain rude.)
Why? Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's Reply-To-Author function, and nobody says you personally have to bind "smart reply" to anything in your MUA.
Side question: when you have a message addressed to multiple mailing lists, what does "reply to list" even mean?
Long answer: click here -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2369 Short answer: List-Post may occur at most once. It goes there.
Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so it's not just me.
Opposing "Reply-To munging" is nowhere near advocating restricting reply UI to "Reply-to-Author" and "Reply-to-All", no more, no less. In fact, my opposition to Reply-To munging is a good part of *why* I think "smart reply" would be a useful addition to AOL's MUA, inter alia.
(I'm not sure whether T-bird can save me from a DMARC-munged list that uses "Reply-To: <list>". That combination just makes my head hurt.)
It made Mark's head hurt, too. I think he did a good job of mitigating a fundamentally broken part of the Internet, but it's suboptimal that anybody uses p=reject on non-transactional mail flows. (This algorithm can't do anything to help with DMARC, unfortunately.)
-- Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information Email: turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN