Cedric Duval wrote: > > Even less "official" than the above draft, there is > > http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html > > which gives some arguments about why implementing MFT.
yeah i noticed this one as well, although given the author i decided not to mention it.... (although it does make some good points, mr. bernstein is not exactly known for his sunny disposition or ablity to play nice with others). > > at this point, almost no 'popular' MUAs honor this header. > > Any idea of which MUAs are implementing MFT, apart from Mutt? Gnus? well there's a list on the site you mention above... i don't think there are too many others. > It seems that some MTA (qmail at least) also set a MFT header if they > are given a list of mailing-lists. yes. this seems like kind of a bad idea to me, and something best left to MUAs - even if they are slow to adopt this, it seems as if enforcing this in an MTA might cause some problems. for instance if i set the 'Reply-To' header to my address, but my mail server, running qmail (mine doesn't really) adds a 'Mail-Followup-To' header with the list address. Of course i don't use mutt (actually i do, but just suppose) so i have no easy way of overriding this header. now when someone using an MUA that honors this header responds, it won't respond to my reply-to address. i realize that this example might be a bit far fetched, but it's just one example. > > possibly so. however as i've said, insisting that we (ie mutt > > users) are doing the Right Thing is a bit presumptious (even if it's > > true). > > This might not be the Right Thing, but this is the best in absence of > any other solution to the Reply-To issues... agreed! i guess i was just trying to say that most of us communicate with non-mutt users frequently (i am the only mutt user at my work, in my family, etc. etc.) and so it's to our advantage to try and push for things like this to be made standard. -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
