----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <admin(_at_)asarian-host(_dot_)net>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Google's gmail.com checks spf records!
jpinkerton wrote:
Well - to be honest - I'm not sure why Reply-To: should exist at all,
given the fact that there's a From: If they are not the same address,
the mail is suspect, imho.
I would not go as far as that. :) Reply-To is very useful for mailing
list;
Q.E.D, this list, for instance:
Reply-To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
I love that. On the IETF list, to mention one, I always almost forget to
replace the "From:" entity on reply with the IETF mailing list address.
And
then you wind up having to apologize to someone for having sent them a
private email, instead of going to the list.
This is *exactly* my point. I have tripped over that one too, but I just
happen to believe that it should be standard practice to have From: and
ReplyTo: the same. If the ietf mail-list has it set up that way - it must
be right ;-)
Without getting too bogged down here - I'm of the belief that we need to
protect the vast majority of mail users against the false ReplyTo: SPF does
it for the sending domain, provided there's no intermediate hops mangling
the headers, but it'd be nice to go the extra mile if possible.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492