On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:12:14 +0100 Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk allegedly wrote:
The reason it is done this way is to preserve the reply-to header rather than rewriting it, this is considered the "correct" behaviour but unfortunately not all mail clients support it. Hence things like yahoo groups do it the "technically wrong" way and rewrite the reply-to header to be the list address.
It has been a matter of debate on the list several times and comes up for discussion once in a while. But the general consensus each time is to leave it the correct way and deal with it at the client end.
See old discusssions below:
Reply-to-munging considered harmful: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Reply-to-munging considered useful: http://www.blackgate.net/consulting/reply-to_munging_useful.html
Reply-to-munging /is/ really harmful. http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful
:-)
Mick ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------