On Jan 20, 0:34, Jules Richardson wrote:
> Well hang on.. surely it's legal protocol-wise for witchy to put the
> reply-to field in the header for email that he sends, even though the
> from: field is also present and valid?
The "Reply-To:" field is supposed to override the "From:" field, and
although the standard doesn't expressly forbid setting both the same,
it makes it clear that there is no point unless they're different.
> Isn't it a little quirky for the list software to append to any
existing
> reply-to field rather than overwriting it? (which for a mailing list
> might seem more sensible).
Not really, the standard implies that appending is correct behaviour,
in case replies direct to the originator should not go to the
originator's address as given in the "From:" field (eg suppose Witchy
sent a message from somewhere other than his normal address, or a
machine that didn't have a valid address; the "From:" would show the
not-normal point of origin, the "Reply-to: would show his normal
address).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Received on Tue Jan 20 2004 - 02:07:43 GMT