[ale] ALE reply-to changes needed??

[Geoffrey]

That is in reference to systems that automatically generate address 
lists, such as the ale list, not client software.  I'll admit, I've not 
looked at the rfcs in a while, but I do know that a mail client is not 
supposed to send email to the From: if there is a Reply-to: set.

James Sumners wrote:
> Maybe neither client is broken (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html):
> 
> "4.4.4.  AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
> 
>         For systems which automatically  generate  address  lists  for
>         replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:
> 
>             o   The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent  notices  of
>                 any  problems in transport or delivery of the original
>                 messages.  If there is no  "Sender"  field,  then  the
>                 "From" field mailbox should be used.
> 
>             o   The  "Sender"  field  mailbox  should  NEVER  be  used
>                 automatically, in a recipient's reply message.
> 
>             o   If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply  should
>                 go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to
>                 the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.
> 
>             o   If there is a "From" field, but no  "Reply-To"  field,
>                 the  reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated
>                 in the "From" field.
> 
>         Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to  communicate  with
>         the  person  that  initiated  the  message  transfer.  In such
>         cases, it is reasonable to use the "Sender" address.
> 
>         This recommendation is intended  only  for  automated  use  of
>         originator-fields  and is not intended to suggest that replies
>         may not also be sent to other recipients of messages.   It  is
>         up  to  the  respective  mail-handling programs to decide what
>         additional facilities will be provided."
> 
> The rfc does not seem to state that it absolutely must be done in a specific
> manner. Rather it just makes some suggestions.
> 
> On a related note, I found that one of the headers this list adds in is
> outdated: "List-Archive: <http://www.ale.org/pipermail/ale/>"
> 
> 
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:16:45 -0400
> Geoffrey <esoteric at 3times25.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>As I've stated before.  It is not 'borked.'  The RFC's state that the 
>>purpose of the reply-to header is to send reply email to INSTEAD of the 
>>from header.  If you select reply to all, it still should not send the 
>>email to the from address, because the purpose of the reply-to is to 
>>redirect the email away from the from address header.  Therefore, it is 
>>your email client that is 'borked.' :)
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale