On Tue, 24 May 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
The Reply-To header field will do what you want. It is specifically
designed to indicate a list of addresses for responses (RFC 2822):
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent.
So, in your case, setting
Reply-To: paul(_at_)club(_dot_)ie, ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
would have indicated your stated preference.
Hmm, possibly yes.
This has been discussed in detail some months ago on the ietf-822 list.
Ah. would you be able to say roughly when? (or what the subject line
may have contained?).
I have read of short descriptions of the problem, eg:
Which refers to the subtle distinction of interpreting Reply-To as
the direction for a 'full' reply.
That distinction is possibly far too subtle though. If there is a
distinction in how Reply-To should be interpreted between 'reply-all'
and 'reply-author' MUA functionality, then for the latter, which of
the From or multiple Reply-To mailboxes should a respondent use?
Would you know the answer, or be able to direct me to it?
I'm sceptical the Reply-To approach would work - I think i'll try an
experiment and see how it works in practice.
For an older description of the field and its uses, see RFC 822 section
4.4.3, and note that a mailing list is "text message teleconferencing".
Paul Jakma paul(_at_)clubi(_dot_)ie paul(_at_)jakma(_dot_)org
Key ID: 64A2FF6A