Re: Reply To

[Leslie Mikesell <les @ Mcs . Net>]

> 
> RJ> That was exactly my point. The original poster (seemed to me anyway) to
> RJ> be using the statement that "reply-to" COULD be of use to (I forget how
> RJ> it was worded, but I know it meant) mailing lists to argue that RFC822
> RJ> forbade their use. I may have missed something (I often do - grin), but
> RJ> it seemed to me to be just the opposite.
> 
> I stand by the interpretation that the intent of RFC822 in this regard is
> that the Reply-To pointing to the [mailing list] is set by the author of a
> message to that system.  The definition of the header states that it is an
> originator header, which means that regardless of how it is used it is only
> set by the originator of a message.  Mailing list managers are *NOT* the
> originators of their lists' traffic, therefore mailing list managers should
> not modify originator headers of that traffic.

There is a legimate difference of opinion as to whether mailing
lists exist as an extension of the sender's mailer or as an agent
for the list manager.  Consider the case of a moderated list where
the moderator makes editorial comments.  Here the message is clearly
not the original and no one could dispute the moderator's right to
modify headers.  Now, does a moderator of such a list have the
right to omit his comments? Or does he have to moderate at all to
consider the list his own?

In practice, I prefer the lists that do set the Reply-to: back to the
list since I rarely/never reply privately and think that the list
benefits from making it easier to respond publically.  However, people
who are on more that a few lists probably get used to punching reply/all
because that always works even though the extra CC: to the author
annoys some people.

Les Mikesell
  les@mcs.com