>>>>> "RJ" == Ray Jones <rayjones@praline.no.neosoft.com> writes:
RJ> BTW, I realize I didn't cc this to the list. It just didn't seem to
RJ> serve a purpose so I only replied to you.
Your mailer must think that it's smarter than you... But it's out, and my
reply might be of general interest (for suitable definitions of 'general'
and 'interest').
RJ> The original poster (seemed to me anyway) to be using the statement
RJ> that "reply-to" COULD be of use to (I forget how it was worded, but I
RJ> know it meant) mailing lists to argue that RFC822 forbade their use.
The RFCs are basically our equivalent of the judeo-christian bible. You
can read a whole bunch of different interpretations into them, and if you
have an opinion you want to back up, you can generally find a bit of
evidence there to support it.
Later RFCs are generally much better, with the codification of "should" and
"MUST".
RFCs aside, the real use of any email header is how MTAs and MUAs react to
it. And guess what: you can rarely predict that, and new clients broken in
new ways are coming out all the time.
- J<
References:
-
Re: Reply To
From: Ray Jones <rayjones@praline.no.neosoft.com>
|
|
