> From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:50 PM
<...> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html This is written from the perspective of Elm being the reference for all MUA's. Though I used Elm twenty years ago as my primary MUA, the MUA's in widest use today do _not_ have reply-to-list functionality and use the Reply-to: header to direct the reply to the proper address. This fellow's citations are as outdated as his MUA. RFC822 was published in 1982 and RFC1123 updated it in 1989. So much has changed since those standards were published that most people involved in email consider RFC2821/2822, published in 2001, to be far more relevant, even though those are still officially classified as proposed standards (the IETF sometimes moves at the speed of a glacier). Looking at RFC2822, section 3.6.2: 3.6.2. Originator fields <...> The originator fields also provide the information required when replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field, replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the "From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the reply. Now, RFC2821 clearly defines mailing lists as operating on a "redistribution" model, where the list is considered the new sender. The list MUST change the return-path (argument of the MAIL TO: command) to the list owner (though common practice uses a VERP address instead) and the original From: header MUST NOT be altered so as to retain the original author. Most mailing lists, though not all, choose to set the Sender: header to the list owner to show that the mail did not come directly from the original author, but was a bulk redistribution (re-injected into the internet mail stream) by the list on the author's behalf. While the RFC's don't require this, other sections in RFC2822 give the basis for this practice. Though the Resent-From: header might have been a better choice, most sites chose Sender: instead. Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to reply to the list (the actual sender of the message you received) rather than the original poster (a private reply to a public post, not generally appropriate). It is perfectly within the purview of the list to alter the Reply-To: header so that the most commonly deployed MUA's will perform the preferred action when the recipient hits reply. In short, you need a good reason _not_ to do something the same way as the rest of the world when it comes to email. The site referred to above does not make a compelling case given today's normal practices. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]