Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
I'd rather avoid having a definition of Mail-Copies-To in email that
differed from the definition used in usenet.
What if it was possible to use the same definition on both email and
usenet?
I can imagine two ways to solve the problem:
(a) Reply-To with some magic address that is valid syntax but a no-op.
maybe this:
Reply-To: nobody :;
This appear to work.
(b) a new No-Replies-To-Author field
offhand, I'd prefer (a) on the assumption that it is more likely to do
the right thing with existing MUAs. it also avoids having one field
change the meaning of another field.
Right. And it would be in the same style as the rest of NR.
If nobody can find client behaviors that MFT/MRT can achieve, that NR
together with (a) cannot, especially wrt news (MFT/MRT is used in news
too, IIRC), I'd like to see NR move forward.
Thanks,
Simon