2 Apr 2006 00:14
Re: Directory / folder help please
David Champion <dgc <at> uchicago.edu>
2006-04-01 22:14:55 GMT
2006-04-01 22:14:55 GMT
* On 2006.04.01, in <20060401140237.GQ22131 <at> tunican.local>, * "Kyle Wheeler" <kyle-mutt <at> memoryhole.net> wrote: > >> > >>Additionally, this is not a header that YOU should set. This is a > >>header used by mailing lists. > > > >What? No. Can you give any reference? > > http://cr.yp.to/immhf/response.html > ... > What it boils down to is that at worst Reply-To is an unreliable > header (because many mailing lists mangle it), and at best its a > duplicate header (because this information should already be in the > From header). For mailing lists, use mutts support for The point of Reply-To: is that some people prefer to think of From: as "this address originated the message", rather than as "I would like to receive replies at this address," D.J.Bernstein's dubious authority notwithstanding. cr.yp.to documents his opinions and recommendations, but not a standard. Reply-To: is advisory; it says "I prefer responses here." Any From: address should be capable of receiving (otherwise it's not meaningful as an address, since addresses are by definition places you can send to), but it's not necessarily the case that it's the most desirable reply address. If a MLM sets Reply-To: on your sent message, your responses are affected whether or not you set Reply-To: yourself. The edge case where this has any bearing at all is when the recipient of a message via a list which has altered Reply-To: elects to ignore the list's Reply-To: and reply directly to the sender. It's not compelling to me that this edge case should invalidate a long-standing definition of the Reply-To: header, when the (admittedly less ambiguous) alternatives such as MFT and MRT are not necessarily dependable. As a pragmatic matter it's generally best not to use Reply-To. There are occasions when it's appropriate, though, and nothing in any standard is stated or implied about precisely who "should" set it (822/2822 define it as an "originator field", but both the author and the MLM are, in some sense, originators). It's certainly not a header *intended* for mailing lists, even if they perhaps legitimately choose to use it. -- -- -D. dgc <at> uchicago.edu NSIT University of Chicago
RSS Feed