3 Feb
2000
3 Feb
'00
7:42 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Rich Lafferty once stated:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:00:33PM +0000, Hans Franke (Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de) wrote:
Just in case you missed it last time (from RFC-822, available via
ftp://nis.nsf.net/documents/rfc/rfc0822.txt , page 22):
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical
uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first
case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine
address. In the second case, an author may wish additional
persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A
somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-
To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference;
then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to
guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
own.
That last sentance allows majordomo to ``munge'' the Reply-To: field. If
you want, I can even send you the RFC in question.
-spc (Any questions?)
Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
only real chance to go along.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822 specifies that the Reply-To:
is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to
suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify?