On 10 May 1997, Rich Pieri wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "PB" == Peter Bowyer <pbowyer@verity.com> writes:
>
> PB> Well said, Ray. Reply-To is a pefectly valid thing to use, so long as
> PB> you understand the consequences.
>
> Not according to RFC822, it is not. As far as the standard for Internet
> mail is concerned, Reply-To is an originator header -- that is, only the
> originator is allowed to set it. Since mailing list management programs do
> not originate their lists' traffic, their setting of Reply-To headers is
> not a perfectly valid thing to do.
Let's take a look at RFC-822, shall we? Pay careful attention to the third
typical use of REPLY-TO.
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical
uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first
case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine
address. In the second case, an author may wish additional
persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A
somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-
To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference;
then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to
guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
own.
Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport
service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended
to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes-
sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message
originator and is intended to direct replies.
4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
For systems which automatically generate address lists for
replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:
o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of
any problems in transport or delivery of the original
messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the
"From" field mailbox should be used.
o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used
automatically, in a recipient's reply message.
o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should
go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to
the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.
> The people who wrote the RFC knew what they were doing. Flaunt their
> expertise at your own peril.
Exactly. If a list manager wants to use Reply-To in his/her list, then the
proper usage by subscribers of that list is to use the Reply-To address.
In light of the recent ccing discussion, as this list does not use the
Reply-To header, my personal preference as a subscriber is to not get
duplicates emailed to me.
Jim
Please note our new phone number starting June 1st:+1.503.641.1449
__________________________________________________________________
Jim Dawson jdawson@navi.net
GCN Communications, Inc. http://www.navi.net
2305 NW Kearney St. Ste. 239 voice: +1.503.531.1978
Portland, Or 97210 USA fax: +1.503.531.1979
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Follow-Ups:
-
Re: Reply To
From: Ray Jones <rayjones@praline.no.neosoft.com>
References:
-
Re: Reply To
From: Rich Pieri <rich.pieri@prescienttech.com>
|
|
