Re: Reply-To munging: considered harmful?
* On 2006.04.01, in <20060401224920.GA13691@xxxxxxxxxx>,
* "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <keld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, RFC 2822 3.6.2 says:
>
> Here it is said that the Reply-To: header is meant to be where the
> author suggests that replies be sent. Author means the one that wrote
> the text, that is, the original sender. So RFC 2822 itself clearly
> says who is the one to set this header. Mailing list software should not
> interfere with the author's setting of a Reply-To: header, by
> overwriting it or some such.
The problem is in the ambiguity of the terms "originator" and "author".
Those who argue that it's valid for MLMs to insert or replace Reply-To
assert that because the MLM is sourcing a new message to a new
destination, it is an "originator". You're taking the opposing point of
view. As it happens I tend to agree with you, and I dislike Reply-To
munging by MLMs rather a lot, but it doesn't stop the ambiguity or the
disagreement.
It's a gray area within the RFCs, and the argument carries on, which
is why people propose other fields like MFT/MRT to clear it up. I was
trying not to take sides in that debate while still saying that Reply-To
is not specifically *assigned* to MLMs.
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago