* Scott Wiersdorf <scott(_at_)perlcode(_dot_)org> [2004-08-09 17:14]:
See <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> for some
interesting considerations in setting the Reply-To header for
mailing lists.
Thanks for posting that link. I have found myself in disputes over
the reply-to issue multiple times; and it's nice to simply be able to
point to a link.
There is one point that is missing from that page. It would be nice
if Rosenthal's article also documented the purpose of the
mail-followup-to header, which is the appropriate field to specify
where *public* replies should go.
The mail-followup-to field may not be addressed in an RFC, so I won't
call it a standard, but it is at least a convention (the only
convention in fact) for an author to state where public replies should
go. It would be nice if Rosenthal would add the argument that
reply-to munging is really a case of hijacking a field that already
had another purpose in order to support capability already provided by
the mail-followup-to field.
I also think he should take advantage of this opportunity to bash
Outlook a little more, and state that it's senseless to make MTA
adjustments to cover for inadequite MUAs. I think he implies this,
but since most of the population uses Outlook, and they should be
aware that Outlook specifically is a poor implementation of a mail
client. I believe Outlook is the primary driver behind reply-to
munging mailing lists like Yahoo Groups.
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail