3 ms·

No, it's not. A maling list should not ever touch the Reply-To: header field. See also: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://www.unicom.com/pw

• comex 13y ago
  Note the (also very old) opposing argument: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html Personally, I've almost never wanted to privately reply to a mailing list posts (and I'm under the impression that doing so in most contexts is vaguely rude), but redundant CCs in reply-all chains are ugly, so I prefer munging Reply-To.
  • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
    Except the opposing argument is severely broken, of course. It starts with not even comprehending the RFC he is quoting ("include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference", which clearly does not sanction the "teleconference" itself munging the header), and after that essentially turning logic on its head and appealing to ignorance ("People who don't know how what the working solution looks like are asking for a broken solution! If software does something else than it should do by definition, it's the user's mistake, and therefore the user's fault! [...]"). As for redundant Ccs: That is what Mail-Followup-To is there for, see also: http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html edit: Oh, and also, in particular, he completely ignores the fact that Reply-To munging deletes existing Reply-To headers, and thus breaks things in a way that even the best MUA cannot possibly work around - the original Reply-To isn't there anymore, so it cannot possibly offer you an option to reply to the original Reply-To or to the munged Reply-To.