| our users are using pine 3.91 and it asks, if there is a
| reply-to:, if it should use the original from:, (private reply),
| or reply-to:, (public reply). we find this works fine for our
| users. in fact they like that the MUA asks them.
Argh! Don't you see that this goes against the intent of the Reply-To
header? Pine has been hacked to conform to the _broken_ behaviour of
many mailing lists.
A reasonable header should notice that the user's email address wasn't
in the To: or Cc: headers, and deduce that the mail is sent to mailing
list.. It can then ask the user if he wants a public (same To and Cc,
and From/Reply-To address in addition (in case the sender isn't on the
list)) or private reply (just From/Reply-To).
Why break what works perfectly by munging headers? Give intelligent
software a chance! There is _no_ excuse for the commercial providers
to offer their customers inferior interfaces. If they don't comply,
don't support them. It _is_ that simple. The providers _deserve_ irate
calls from their customers.