Reply-To: behavior was Re: imaging DC600A QIC tapes

[Pete Turnbull]

On Mar 3 2005, 10:03, Tom Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2005, Pete Turnbull wrote:
>
> > Probably because Jules' mailer is inserting an unecessary
"Reply-to:"
> > header (pointless, since it's supposed to be used only when you
want
> > replies to go to somewhere other than the "From:"), and then
mailman is
> > applying the principle of "least modification" and *appending* the
> > classiccmp address, rather than replacing the one Jules' mailer put
in.
> >
> > I've noticed this with posts from one or two other listmembers.
>
> I think Jay's right -- mailman may have changed, but it's not
> necessarily incorrect. There are few subtleties involving
> To:/Reply-To: processing but it's one of those things a lot of
> MUAs make configurable.  Pine's "reply-always-uses-reply-to" in
> feature-list, for example.

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with mailman -- in fact,
applying "least modification" is The Right Thing.  You are only allowed
one "Reply-to:" line per message, and mailman is quite properly not
discarding existing information.  I just don't think any MUA should
create a "Reply-to:" if it's the same as the "From:" or "Sender:".  As
for Pine using "Reply-to:" for replies, that's what the RFCs say you
*should* do if a "Reply-to:" is present; it's purpose is purely to
override the "From:" when replying.

-- 
Pete						Peter Turnbull
						Network Manager
						University of York