At 02:01 PM 12/10/97 , Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>NP> The latter behavior makes perfect sense, after all Reply-To:, by no
>NP> means determines who *sent* the mail to the list.
>
>To Majordomo, it does. If a Reply-To: is present, that's all it cares
>about.
>
>Don't ask for a rationalization; I doubt that anyone can give you one.
Jason's doubts aside [and why would they be a reason not to ask?], I
suspect that the pre-eminence of Reply-To: has to do with the "shifting
email subdomain problem" and probably predates munge_header. List members
can protect themselves from "tneff@blue.my.com => tneff@mail99.my.com =>
tneff@my.com => ???" address mismatches by s_bscribing and posting with a
standard form of their address in the Reply-To: hole. As long as that form
consistently resolves and delivers, they are safe.
--
Tom Neff <tneff@panix.com> <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>
References:
|
|
