Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
(a) Reply-To with some magic address that is valid syntax but a
no-op. maybe this:
Reply-To: nobody :;
But in the case of mailing lists, which is where this requirement most
often arises, that might also prevent replies being sent to the
mailing list (except in MUAs that had an explicit command for
"Reply-To-List").
not if the list were on the To or CC line and the recipient did a "reply
to all". (I'm assuming that reply-to: nobody:; would just remove the
From addresses from the reply recipient list, and have no effect on the
addresses obtained from the To and CC fields of the subject message).
The problem is when people want to reply to the author, and press the
"reply author" button. That operation would take the content of From:
as the recipient, but Reply-To would override that value with
nobody:;, and the reply would go to the bit bucket.
if you think about it, anytime someone wants to reply to the _author_,
they (or their MUA) should use the From field. it's not reasonable to
assume that the Reply-To field points to the author. it is reasonable
to expect authors to set the From address to a valid address that will
reach them.
This might be, but at least my experience with deployed MUAs suggest
this isn't what is implemented today. MUAs prefer the Reply-To over
From on "reply author". If we want to introduce something new, I
believe it should be designed considering how the majority of MUAs
behave today, even though it may be argued that they are all broken.
Thanks,
Simon