> No, it is not that simple. The REPLY-TO header is there to
> let the composer decide where replies to message should go.
> She may want replies to go to a different address than the one
> in the FROM header. If the list manager manipulates the message
> by replacing the REPLY-TO, or adding another REPLY-TO, you have
> removed the possibility of replying to the sender at the address
> she wishes you to reply to.
Actually as the composer, I would like my Reply-To: to be set to
the list address, except in the rare cases where I want to subvert
the interesting replies only to my own mailbox instead of sharing
them with the rest of the list members.
However, my mailer doesn't make this easy and I'm too lazy to do
it the hard way.
> IMHO, there are two solutions:
>
> 1. do nothing with REPLY-TO, or
> 2. enclose the message in a new message in such a way that
> the FROM, REPLY-TO, DATE and SUBJECT headers of the original
> message also are enclose, but the new message has the list as
> FROM header.
Number 2 doesn't work because now you have no way to reply only
to the author when you decide that is appropriate.
3. Continue to assume that Reply-To: is going to be broken and punch
reply/all for every mail list reply you make. Continue to ignore
the complaints about the extra CC:s that this method generates.
4. Insist that everyone using mailing lists insert the Reply-To:
themselves with the list address if they want their submissions
to a discussion list to actually be discussed instead of becoming
private mail.
5. Fix the mailing list software to insert the Reply-To: header that
I wanted but my own mailer wouldn't insert for me.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
