* William Yardley <mutt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Even if I don't use original mutt anymore, still I may switch back again from mutt-ng soon. > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the > mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that > replies be sent. That's exactly what I use it for when mailing privately while on tour. However, I've noticed that it doesn't work with each and every client on a win platform. Not much of a problem, since the user will notice it sooner or later, and adapt accordingly. If it is set on mailinglists tho, I tend to answer to the mailinglist if not explicitly asked not to, solely - I just don't CC mail to mailinglists also to the one I'm replying to. > This suggests a number of uses for Reply-To - basically, allowing > the sender to determine where he or she feels replies should be > sent. I've never understood this otherwise - without having to consult RFC texts. I associate MFT solely with mailinglists and would not honour it otherwise, which I always do with Reply-To (even manually since I read that part of the header, and use that feature myself frequently). Just my common sense speaking... Some other matter... just being curious.... Has that "reply-with-to-address-as-from-address"-patch (the old hawks in here will surely know what I mean) finally found its way into "mainline" mutt? That feature would really come in handy for me, having multiple accounts, and lots of mailinglists - and a bunch of folder-hooks, apart from a rather big .procmailrc ;-) The downside about those patches clearly is that patch after patch won't work at all times. One just has to chose what to pick.
Attachment:
pgpvlcTzb603Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature