On 15 May 2008 at 17:33, Richard Detwiler wrote: > James Knott wrote: > > Richard Detwiler wrote: > >> Larry Gusaas wrote: > >>> > >>> Some mail/news programs do not respect the 'Reply-To' header and > >>> also send to the 'From' address when using the 'Reply-All' button. > >>> Those who use these non-compliant programs can use 'Reply-All' > >>> button when responding to unsubscribed OPs. > >> > >> I'm not sure I'd call those programs "non-compliant". > >> > >> I'd be more inclined to call them "compliant" to my wish to actually > >> reply to all when I select "Reply all". > >> > >> It would be a much easier way to cc unsubscribed OPs. > >> > > > > So, you're saying an email app should ignore reply to? > > No, if I do a "reply", it should go to the "reply-to" field. > > If I do a "reply all", it should go to the "reply-to" field plus anyone > else who is listed (in the from field, or the cc field, etc.). In other > words, to "all".
Maybe. Maybe not. The wording of rfc 2822 is not exactly clear:- "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent" Note the use of the word "suggests". I think common English usage would be that the sender's wishes should be respected if possible. OTOH it's arguable whether list software should be messing with this field at all - it depends who you consider the "sender" to be: originator or list exploder. I know it stands the proverbial snowball's chance, but one way out of this problem would be for the reply-to field always to contain the list address, and for non-subscribed senders only also the original sender's address. I think that would have the effect most desire? There's obviously special processing in the list exploder to add the 'moderated' header - it should be simple enough to alter reply-to as well at this point, I would have thought. Should this really be on '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' ??? -- Permission for this mail to be processed by any third party in connection with marketing or advertising purposes is hereby explicitly denied. http://www.scottsonline.org.uk lists incoming sites blocked because of spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Scott, Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
