Re: Problem with reply-all when "Reply-to"

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 11:46:48AM +0100, Martin Leopold wrote:
> 
> Hi Carlos.
> Souldn't this mail have gone to the balsa list?
> 
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 01:51:08 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > > So the address from the "From" header is never considered when using
> > > reply-to-all and the "Return-Path" header is set.
> > You mean Reply-To and I think this is the right way. rfc2822 agrees.
> 
> No. In my case the Return-Path header is set while Reply-To is left out.

Iirc Return-Path is not destined for end users but for MTAs reporting
errors back to the source. 

> 
> > If the sender goes to the trouble of setting a Reply-To
> > he certainly doesn't want you to use the potentialy wrong From.
> 
> I din't go to the trouble of reading the rfc before making the patch. It 
> doesn't make sence in my case. Here's what I could find on Reply-To from 
> the rfc you mention:
> 
> 3.6.2 Originator fields
> ... When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to 
> which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. ...
> 
> Suggests is not a very strong formulation so I think it well within the 
> rfc to CC the reply to the address in "From:" when doing a reply-all and 
> "Reply-To" is set.
> 

Hum, ok you might have a point there. I agree rfc lets it open.
btw, did i reply just to you ? I meant it for the list. 
Oh well, lets see what other people have to say.

cheers

-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A 
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Shaw's Principle:
        Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.