Without coming out a little heavy handed here. But that order, the one
mj1 uses, is the "correct" way to do it. Even though this section is
"Recommeded" I find it easier to explain that is the way the RFC says to
The following is from RFC-822:
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.
o If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field,
the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated
in the "From" field.
Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with
the person that initiated the message transfer. In such
cases, it is reasonable to use the "Sender" address.
This recommendation is intended only for automated use of
originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies
may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is
up to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what
additional facilities will be provided.
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Majordomo1 and (currently) Majordomo2 look in the following headers to find
> the user address (first existing, nonempty header gets it):
> I am beginning to think this is bogus. The problem is (again) the fact
> that nobody can decide what Reply-To: really means. Why is this a problem?
> My Mj2 lists are semi-closed to outsiders. If you are not a list member,
> you must respond to a confirmation message before you can post. Where is
> that message sent? To the "user address", of course. So if you post a
> message to my list and another list and set Reply-To: to that list (which
> is a reasonable use of Reply-To:, I think) guess who gets the confirmation?
> The same goes for "you can't post" messages and the like.
> So, is it still common to use Reply-To: instead of just forging From: to
> indicate the address you receive mail at? Is the above brokenness worth
> keeping the behavior? I think it isn't; the only way we've managed to get
> away with it so far is because Majordomo1 sends _no_ status messages back
> to the "user". I'm not willing to force the continuation of that practice,
> so From: is going to have to rule.
> Unless there's something I'm missing.
> - J<