From kmail-devel Sun Nov 30 12:53:03 2003 From: Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:53:03 +0000 To: kmail-devel Subject: Re: [RFC] Reply behavior in KMail X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kmail-devel&m=107019686114372 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============1606701116==" --===============1606701116== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_Jhey/AzeeeMwqdY"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Boundary-02=_Jhey/AzeeeMwqdY Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 30 November 2003 04:05, Don Sanders wrote: > On Saturday 29 November 2003 09:18, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote: > > The question now is whether it's necessary to revert the behavior > > to the old behavior until the new behavior is improved like above. > > The only valid reason for this is that probably many users always > > used Reply in case they wanted to reply to a mailing-list and that > > this worked for them up to now. A few people complained about this > > on kmail@kde.org and kde-pim@kde.org and there were also already 1 > > or 2 bugs reports about this. Of course, only those people complain > > that don't like the change. Those who like the new much more > > logical behavior don't speak up. Therefore I'd like to know what > > the usability team thinks about this. > > I'm not real happy with the current reply to behavior. > > I believe Waldo's, Andras' and Jason's criticisms are legitimate. Sure. But this criticism is mostly based on two things: a) There was no Reply to Mailing-list icon on the default toolbar. b) People didn't know about Reply to Mailing-list (mainly due to a)). a) has been fixed by me in the meantime. So everone updating to KDE 3.2=20 will notice the new icon, wonder why it's there, notice that Reply=20 doesn't work anymore as before and start using Reply to Mailing-list=20 (what they should have been using all the time for replying to=20 mailing-list messages). > I vote for the behavior to be reverted to the old behavior. That is > the standard reply action should always use the reply-to field when > set, and that no exception should be made for mailing lists. I > believe that this should be the behavior for the 3.2 release. Since we have roughly as many external proponents as external opponents=20 I think it's time for a decision by the KMail decision making group.=20 Don and me disagree. So the decision will have to be made by a vote of=20 the KMail core developers which are (according to About KMail) Till=20 Adam, Carsten Burghardt, Marc Mutz, Zack Rusin. In case of a draw Don=20 and me agreed (IIRC) that Stephan Kulow will decide. Dear fellow core developers: Please take the time to read the thread=20 "Ideas on Reply-To-List" on kmail@kde.org and then make your decision: [ ] Revert to the KDE 3.1 behavior where Reply always used the value of=20 the Reply-to header [ ] Keep the current behavior where Reply works as Reply to Sender [ ] Abstention Regards, Ingo --Boundary-02=_Jhey/AzeeeMwqdY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/yehJGnR+RTDgudgRAvFyAJ0TD3J5G9SNcZ01pfMKziPwFo2/FACeIz97 bi0pvLI5qe38eVqUpxiIcvc= =pJoc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Jhey/AzeeeMwqdY-- --===============1606701116== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ KMail Developers mailing list kmail@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail --===============1606701116==--