Seth Goodman wrote: > 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.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to
munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit
reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *removed* that
reference on reply-tos just because of the long-standing debate over reply-to
munging.
The real question is why List-Post was written in such a way as so that
people could debate it's usefulness as an inidicator of where to send replies
(it has happened, believe me) and why the head-honchos up on high who debate
such standards have gone on record as saying that a list-reply is not needed.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
