Reproduction: 1. Open email with several recipients 2. Open Reply button menu 3. Click "Reply" 4. Open newsgroup posting 5. Open Reply button menu 6. Click "Reply" 7. Click "Reply all" Actual result: Step 2 (mail many recipients): Default action "Reply all", menu also has "Reply" Step 3 ("reply"): Reply to author only Step 5 (newsgroup post): Default action "Reply", menu also has "Reply all" Step 6 ("reply"): Reply to newsgroup only, not author Step 7 ("reply all"): Reply to newsgroup and author (and other mail recipients, if existing) Expected result: Step 2 (mail many recipients): Default action "Reply all", menu also has "Reply author" Step 3 ("reply author"): Reply to author only Step 5 (newsgroup post): Default action "Reply newsgroup", menu also has "Reply all" and "Reply author" Step 6 ("reply newsgroup"): Reply to newsgroup only, not author Step 7 ("reply all"): Reply to newsgroup and author and - if existing - other mail recipients ("reply author"): Reply to author only (not newsgroup) This is exactly bug 95623, a GNKSA MUST requirement (see bug 12699). Bryan, can you please ui-r+?
In other words, I currently have no way to reply to author only for a newsgroup post (bug 95623), and it's not clear what "reply" does, because it in one case replies privately to the author only and in another posts to the public (newsgroup). Bad UI.
This bug could be merged into bug 498448.
(In reply to comment #2) > This bug could be merged into bug 498448. Would you be satisfied with duping ?
Only if the points raised here are considered in the other bug, by adding the cases in the style of Bryan's initial list. The other bug currently entirely ignores newsgroups.
"reply newsgroup" is usually called "followup".
IMO followup is not same as reply. If you set followup then all subsequent posts go to that address. Reply is reply even in newsgroups. You can call reply that has been made a followup to message before that, but you still make a reply. Followup is a noun, reply is a verb.
FYI, the purpose of this bug is to make the difference crystal-clear to users who are *not* familiar with Usenet. I have no problem with "followup to newsgroup", but the "to newsgroup" and "to author" must be in there.
(In reply to Ben Bucksch (:BenB) from comment #8) > FYI, the purpose of this bug is to make the difference crystal-clear to > users who are *not* familiar with Usenet. I have no problem with "followup > to newsgroup", but the "to newsgroup" and "to author" must be in there. We've already got that in the Message menu and the context menu ("Followup to Newsgroup" and "Reply to Sender Only"), but we don't in the message header. What's your opinion on naming the message header buttons "Reply to Sender" and "Followup"? I'm trying to keep the names of the buttons fairly short, since horizontal space is at a premium in the message header, especially for people who use the vertical layout for the 3pane. We do provide more explicit descriptions in the tooltips: "Reply to the sender of this message" and "Post a followup to this newsgroup", though.
(In reply to Jim Porter (:squib) from comment #9) > What's your opinion on naming the message header buttons "Reply to Sender" and "Followup"? Or perhaps "Reply Author" and "Followup"?
Blake: thoughts on changing "Reply" to "Reply Author"? That would help disambiguate things in mail *and* news, and that naming scheme is consistent with "Reply All" and "Reply List".
There must be "to author", "to all", "to newsgroup" and "to list" in there, in all cases. Merely "Reply" or "Followup" is ambiguous for anybody who's not familiar with the email terminology. Even to me, a mere "Reply" doesn't allow me to predict me what the software will do, and I consider myself an expert. The purpose here is to avoid accidental misdirections, e.g. in offices where people just reply to everybody without need and thinking, or we sometimes see snowball flamewars on mailing lists, etc.. It is good that people think before they hit a button. BTW: "to sender" is wrong, because From: (=Author) != Sender:. We reply to From:, not to Sender:. Even psychologically, "to author" is better, because when you want to correct somebody, you are more inclined to correct the "author" than merely the "sender".
> horizontal space is at a premium in the message header I understand your concern. However, misdirected replies (esp. in daily office routine) are frequent and waste a lot of time. We need to make users think about it explicitly before they compose a response, this is why these labels are very important. We need to find a way to make that possible.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.