On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM, John Haxby <jch at thehaxbys.co.uk> wrote: > Well, RFC 2822 has been obsoleted by RFC 5822, though I don't think that > what it says about the Reply-To header has changed. Nope: When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. > I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. ? I said that some lists use > reply-to and some don't and what the different lists use is up to the list > maintainers. ? I suppose you could be disagreeing with the fact that you'll > have to learn to like it (or put it with it), but that's your prerogative. That's not what I said. What I said is that the mailing lists that choose to munge Reply-To, are making a mistake. > If you really want to change the world then this is the wrong forum. ? You > should convince the mailmain maintainers to drop the option for a reply-to > header That's the purpose of this thread. > and if you want to remove the reply-to header from the standard then > you'll need to convince the right group of people on the IETF. No need, the IETF already defined that Reply-To should be used by the *author*, not the mailing list software. > You should read what RFC5322 says about the treatment of Reply-To (section > 3.6.2 and 3.6.3): you may decide that the client that you're using (gmail?) > has a bug and in that case you should take it up with the maintainers of > that client. This has nothing to do with the client, this is about the mailing list software changing the Reply-To field to something the *author* didn't set, and that goes against RFC 5322. Have you actually read the sections you yourself mentioned? (3.6.2 and 3.6.3) > Anyway, whatever you choose to do, this discussion is inappropriate for this > list, you should take it elsewhere. The discussion about what this list chooses to do is pertinent to this list. -- Felipe Contreras
