On 27 Jun 1996, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Fair warning, as I must when things like this come up. This rather
> blatantly violates RFC-822, the document which defines the Internet mail
> standard. Reply-To is supposed to be set by the originator of a message
> (ie, the person who submits it to the list), not the agent responsible
> for handing the message off to the final MTA for delivery to the list's
> subscribers.
Matter of definition. The message TO the list was originated at the end
user; the message to the list recipients is originated by the list
itself. There is no violation of the RFC for the majordomo to set the
reply-to.
I can see it being defined either way; as long as there is ambiguity,
however, the definition should be interpreted to make the system more
usable / friendly to the end user. Any other interpretation could be
academically correct / real world ridiculous. In many cases, the greatest
ease of use of the system comes from having the list set the reply-to.
References:
-
Re: Reply-To
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu>
|
|
