Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > This might provide an alternate solution (or vice versa). I kind of like > this one better in that it doesn't require the sender to do anything > differently (but it may be less robust, as it assumes the receiver > reliably de-mangling). I share the assessment. I also feel that relying on Reply-To: would make the result a lot less reliable (I do not have much problem with the use of X-Original-Sender, though).
