On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:41:55PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > I am *against* "Reply-To:" mudging by list software and believe it > > should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to > > be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting > > receipt at home. > > Hmmm, I've tried using "Reply-To:" to point back to the list, in the > hope that it'd discourage those pesky additional "courtesy replies". > It's rarely had any effect, but wouldn't it be wonderful if most MUAs > would respect it?
Having the *sender* of a message set Reply-To back to the list is actually a reasonable use of the feature. The problem comes up with the list tries to set the header itself, partially because it will munge any Reply-To header set for any reason by the original sender, and partly because in some cases, an off-list response might be needed. mutt's ignore_list_reply_to is useful because it only ignores the reply-to in the context of a known list *and* if the reply-to matches the To header. While this would ignore it in a case like you mentioned above, one hopes that mutt users would use list-reply in such a case anyway. w
