On Sat May 28 2005 11:54, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Lots of MUAs will reply to both list(_at_)example(_dot_)net and
smith(_at_)home(_dot_)example for 'reply'.
That's what the author suggested for responses. Why do you say
"things go wrong"?
Sorry, but you seem too knowledgeable to not be aware of the
potential problems of using Reply-To in public mails. Do I have to
spell it out? (I thought I already mentioned the Reply-To risk).
You claimed that it was perceived to be a problem based on a misinterpretation
of the meaning of Reply-To as "private". The problem is with that
misinterpretation (apparently yours).
If use of Reply-To as a way to indicate ones own mailbox were
deprecated, and instead it were mandated that From should always be
the author's mailbox, then Reply-To would be more suitable for the
purpose I need.
Unlikely to happen -- it is a legitimate use and may be appropriate
in some contexts.
Would it be an idea to act on this suggestion?
1. Specifically, more implementations supporting MFT.
Nobody has yet produced a coherent suggestion along those lines that
gained any sort of consensus. Keith Moore identified a number of serious
problems with MFT. So it's highly unlikely.
Could you answer the question rather than my footnote? :)
Oh, it was supposed to be a footnote? If you meant restricting use of
Reply-To, no, I don;t think it would be appropriate.