"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 7/9/07, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, it's not correct to modify Reply-To. Some reasons: > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > None of those are reasons, they're opinions and weary old excuses.
They're old, but not weary, because they're now supported by the internet message standards, which spell out exactly what Reply-To and List-Post are for. <URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> Reply-To, if used, is to be set by the message author. Since a message transport system may only add fields to the header, not arbitrarily modify existing fields, Reply-To can't be munged. <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt> List-Post is to be used to give the email address for posting messages to the mailing list. <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt> Please, let's stop arguing what's already been decided. Every behaviour you ask for is already supported by the existing standards. The "common case" you speak of is fully supported by the unambiguous List-Post field. If your MUA is not using the information, provided in every message from the mailing list, to do what you want, don't ask mailing list admmministrators to accomodate your broken MUA. -- \ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, | `\ Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so." -- _Pinky | _o__) and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list