On 4/8/2014 2:13 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
On 8 Apr 2014, at 06:16, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2(_at_)gentoo(_dot_)org> wrote:
And don't start on suggesting Reply-To instead, RFC 2822 already
noted that it should be set by the author, not the list software [1].
Not that I disagree, but be sure to read the note in RFC 5598 s5.3.
Section 5.3 has no "note". I assume you mean the portion on mailing lists:
5.3. Mailing Lists
...
RFC5322.Reply-To: Set by - Mediator or original Author
Although problematic, it is common for a Mailing List to assign
its own addresses to the Reply-To: header field of messages
that it posts. This assignment is intended to ensure that
replies go to all list members, rather than to only the
original Author. As a User Actor, a Mailing List is the Author
of the new message and can legitimately set the Reply-To:
value. As a Mediator attempting to represent the message on
behalf of its original Author, creating or modifying a
Reply-To: field can be viewed as violating that Author's
intent. When the Reply-To is modified in this way, a reply
that is meant only for the original Author will instead go to
the entire list. When the Mailing List does not set the field,
a reply meant for the entire list can instead go only to the
original Author. At best, either choice is a matter of group
culture for the particular list.
To the extent anyone wants to claim that this is in conflict with RFC
5322, it's helpful to remember that a mailing list is a 'mediator' and
not an MTA.
So it took delivery of a message and is posting a /new/ one. In formal
terms, the "author" of the new message is the mailing list; hence it
gets to set Reply-To...
Consequently, the ending clause in "it should be set by the author, not
the list software" is not correct.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net