On 5/3/2010 4:08 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Dave CROCKER<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
So, by way of fantasizing an example: when John Levine sends me a greeting
remember I said this was a fantasy -- through you guys and I hit Reply to
him... he doesn't get it.
From a user's perspective, this does not seem like such a winning scenario.
We're off in the weeds here, but a reply-to header would work just
fine to direct the reply message to the right person.
The weeds are certainly plentiful around here, but some consideration of
scenarios that could be acceptable might be helpful.
The reply-to is a good point. I assume that it would be something like:
From: John Levine <ecards(_at_)americangreetings(_dot_)com)
Reply-to: John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
One wrinkle is that MUAs are not all that consistent in processing Reply-to's,
based on my own experiences. I post to mailing lists with a different from and
reply-to and get replies to one or the other or both.)
There's other reasons MH's scenario as described is a pretty good
practice, from the perspective of an ESP....stable domain identifier,
FBL participation at ISPs that tie it to authentication, etc.
But then the flip side of that is, the friend -- you -- will get an
email that doesn't actually have your friend's address in the from
field. Confusing, and could potentially result in higher spam
complaints than otherwise.
Most MUAs do not show the From: field email address. So the disparity you cite
is not necessarily something that most recipients will even see.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to