<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: setting reply-to header for mailing list



* 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