Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote in <12525.1599844...@jinx.noi.kre.to>: | Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:26 +0100 | From: "Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group" \ | <austin-group-l@opengroup.org> | Message-ID: <20200911145926.GA7856@localhost> ... || rfc2822 itself says much the same thing later on. In 3.6.3 after it || describes how the destination fields should be set when creating a || reply, it says this: || || Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that || include the destination addresses of the original message in the || destination addresses of the reply. How those reply commands behave || is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document. | |Exactly, what MUAs do with things is not the IETF's bailiwick. | || In particular, whether or not to include the original destination || addresses when the original message had a "Reply-To:" field is not || addressed here. | |As that is a quality of implementation issue. | |Note that my original postscript on the message about issue 1138, where I |mentioned this issue, wasn't about how any MUA handles any mail header \ |fields, |when generating replies, it was about how the mailing list generates |a Reply-To (and mangles the From) field where that Reply-To field is not |indicating the sender's desires as to where replies should be sent. That |is the problem I was pointing out, not what any particular MUA might do |with it.
Yeah. ... || S-nail uses "Reply-To:" to replace just "From:" (although, unlike the || others, it puts the recipients from "To:" into "Cc:"). | |That's another issue which isn't easy to decide - the distinction between |To and Cc has been largely ignored by all mail software, as there's no |rational way to automate it, and it makes no difference at all to e-mail |transmission or delivery - just how the recipients interpret the message |which can depend upon which header they see themselves on. Eg: I \ |very rarely |reply to (non-list) messages I'm on the cc list of, my assumption is \ |that I was |included just as a courtesy, whereas if I am on the To list, and a reply is |appropriate, I usually send one. It is configurable, but on with the default system-wide .mailrc (which is not used by all packagers), since you are addressing someone's message, and not the former addressees. You can turn it off. ... || but for "r" it uses "Reply-To:" as replacement for all recipients. | |That's also the right thing to do, interpreting Reply-To correctly for |the common generic reply command. I agree with that. ... |Not sure what the FreeBSD/OpenBSD versions do, but this seems to be just |the same as the MacOS version, and the ideal defaults, to me. | |How you can manage to reconcile this in the standard, more precisely |that saying "the r and R commands reply to the current message, using |different, but otherwise unspecified, addresses obtained from the header |of the current message" (in better prose than that, one would hope), I |don't know, and that's not very useful to anyone. | || P.S. I know I said I would trim all the offtopic stuff, but I just || want to make one small exception: ||> But I bet it will be deleted by the mailing list software, and ||> replaced by something different.... || It wasn't. | |Yes, I saw... that's a definite improvement over what was there before, |when I first tested that soon after this new way of doing list processing |was enabled, it didn't work like that. I do not know how you can say this. (If it last your original address entirely, where is the improvement?) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
