dovecot - Feb 2007 - Reply-To header

> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 15:16 -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
> > I see you've added a Reply-To header later. The canonical response
in
> > this case is for someone to reference:
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> Yes, I've read that page. It says basically that it makes replying
> privately to the sender difficult. I'm sure it does, but in this list I
> don't think pretty much anyone ever wants to reply to someone only
> privately.
Since deliberate choice is required to go in and set the maillist option, this
is no different than if I configure my MUA to set the reply-to header on
messages I send to the list. So the way it has been implemented for this
list is not a problem at all. If people feel the need to reply to me off
list, I feel that should be a deliberate choice on their part.
-- 
Kenny Dail <kend at amigo.net>

> On Saturday 17 February 2007 00:13, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:33:40AM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 15:16 -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
> > > > I see you've added a Reply-To header later. The
canonical response in
> > > > this case is for someone to reference:
> > > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >
> > A canonical response to that is
> >
> >    http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
> 
> My mind was not changed, sorry. First, RFC 822 is obsolete, and RFC 2822
does
> not contain the quoted paragraph. Instead it says that '[w]hen 
> the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to
which the
> author of the message suggests that replies be sent.' - the author, not
the
> mailing list software. There are other fields for that. 
Fortunately Dovecot's set-up, does make it the author's choice.
-- 
Kenny Dail <kend at amigo.net>