On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
All good thoughts/feedback.
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.)
I wouldn't worry too much about this for a few reasons. We're both on
lots of mailing lists filled with email geeks who pay attention to the
to: and regularly override it. And occasionally forget to. I suspect
this might be an edge case. When I compare it to what I've observed
when doing it from the ESP side of things, the only mis-parsing of a
reply-to (replacing it with the from address) that I ever saw was a
specific, well-known, occasionally irritating MUA and it only applied
to its sending of automated out-of-office replies.
--
Al Iverson | Chicago, IL | (312) 725-0130
Anti-spam: dnsbl.com and spamresource.com
@aliverson on twitter | www.baconrodeo.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html