* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users <postfix-users@postfix.org> [241017 14:23]: > postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in > <ZxE6wl0zgl8/y...@basil.wdw>: > |[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list \ > |etiquette.] > > How about adding a Mail-Followup-To: header then? > Even though it never became a standard, that is even more so > a pity today with that current "x via y" rewriting that places the > original poster in Reply-To:, and for you in particular this is > > Reply-To: postfix-users@postfix.org, Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> > > Manual work in my side beyond that question whether i want to use > Reply-To. > Mail-Followup-To: is a really good thing, and OpenPGP: is not > a bad thing especially with DKIM either.
My apologies! I had explicitly set Reply-To, and expected the mailing list software to _not_ replace it. Both Reply-To and List-Id are RFC standard headers. Some email clients, such as mutt that I use, have a "reply to list" option, but not all email clients do. As you say Mail-Followup-To never became a standard, but more email clients obey that than have a "reply to list". Go figure. SPF broke mailing lists from the start, and we are all paying for it with kludgey workarounds that only half work. Wietse: Can the mailing list software be changed in two separate ways: 1. Do not add the original sender to Reply-To. It is expected that someone sending to a mailing list is also reading the list unless they explicitly state otherwise. A Reply-To that includes both the mailing list and the original sender causes the original sender to get duplicate emails of every reply. This is contrary to long-standing mailing list etiquette. 2. If an email to the list has an explicit Reply-To, do not replace it. Thank you. ...Marvin _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
