On Saturday, April 1 at 04:14 PM, quoth David Champion:
* On 2006.04.01, in <20060401140237.GQ22131@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, * "Kyle Wheeler" <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 it’s a duplicate header (because this information should already be in the “From” header). For mailing lists, use mutt’s support forThe 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.
True, however my original advice stands. There is no point to having both From and Reply-To headers that are identical.
~Kyle --Three things in human life are important. The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind.
-- Henry James
Attachment:
pgpKJHqHe0KGN.pgp
Description: PGP signature