On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:22:29PM +1300, Yuri de Groot wrote:
> AFAICT, the list server for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> doesn't add a reply-to header if there's one already there.
> The webmail interface I'm using right now, for example, sets
> a reply-to header that's beyond my control.
It also appears to set the Reply-To: to the same address as the From:.
Obviously designed by very bright monkeys.
> So technically it's not _munging_, it's _adding_if_not_already_there_.
Huh? Because it's conditional it suddenly isn't munging? Go look at
the definition of mung{,e}.
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.
[RFC2822 - 3.6.2. Originator fields]
While, unfortunately, it's not as clear as it could be, the quote above
from RFC2822 seems to allude to the fact that the Reply-To: should be
set only by the author of the message.
Well, I guess we should be thankful that it doesn't munge the Reply-To:
if the message author has already set it explicitly.
Cheers,
-mjg
--
Matthew Gregan |/
/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
