> On 31 May 2018, at 16:46, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> Am 31.05.2018 um 12:16 schrieb Palvelin Postmaster:
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> *From: *Ian Zimmerman <i...@very.loosely.org <mailto:i...@very.loosely.org>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: List From and Reply-To*
>>> *Date: *31 May 2018 at 8:24:11 EEST
>>> *To: *users@spamassassin.apache.org <mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org>
>>> *Reply-To: *users@spamassassin.apache.org
>>> <mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org>
>>>
>>> On 2018-05-30 15:49, Palvelin Postmaster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why does this list apparently use the original From header of the
>>>> poster’s message and doesn't set a Reply-To header at all?
>>>
>>> Because that is the only right way.
>>>
>>> A list manager has no business modifying the contents of posted
>>> messages. It should be satisfied with the humble role of forwarding
>>> them to subscribers (simplifying, but only slightly so).
>>>
>>> If you want to reply to the list, use the appropriate UI in your
>>> client. For example, in mutt I hit 'L' to send this post.
>>
>> Are you and Bill Cole doing something different from other list members
>> because your emails appear to have a Reply-To header?
>
> IT IS THE DECISION OF THE SENDER TO ADD A REPLY-TO-HEADER
>
> hence your wish that the list-server should mangle mails is a broken idea
No need to shout. That point was already loud and clear from earlier posts. I
was merely curious as to why some have a header and some don’t.
My vote goes to enabling most popular mail clients to reply to the list
(instead of the poster) with a simple reply. I subscribe to many which do. UX
ftw! Evidence seems to point out I’m alone with my opinion in this list and I
can certainly live with that. :)
--
Palvelin.fi Hostmaster
postmas...@palvelin.fi
