[Ilugc] Re: reply to munging
- From: binand@xxxxxxxxx (Binand Sethumadhavan)
- Date: Mon Sep 25 15:55:47 2006
On 25/09/06, Prof. P. Sriram <sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
why? well, i am swayed by the interpretation of rfc2822 which states that
'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to
which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.'
i agree with the argument that 'the list is not the author of the message,
so the list has no business creating a new reply-to header or worse,
rewriting an existing reply-to header.' message authors are free to post
IMO, the list the author of the message, even though the text of the
message was drafted by someone else. In this context, author =>
software responsible for injecting the message into the MTA's queueing
system. Thus, if I "Forward" or "Bounce" (f & b in mutt) an email, I
am the author of the message, since my mutt caused the message to be
injected into the local queue. On the other hand, if I had a .forward
or an /etc/aliases entry, I am not the "author" of the message, since
the injection was in continuation to the message being already in my
queue.
That is, the MLM software is to be considered as an MUA.
This is paraphrasing something I read in another list (populated with
really clued people).
Binand
Other related posts:
