> > in the To: line of any reply. That doesn't seem to be what you > want, so I > > suggest you unset Reply-to, since you don't actually need it to be set. > > already have... > And indeed it is now working as expected.
> what about the case where there is an actual need for a Reply-to: > header? Can you give an example? The most obvious example I can think of is when you send from one email address, but expect the reply to go to a different address. For example, if you sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED], but wanted replies to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or whatever, I just made that up), then I can understand setting it. But you aren't. Both your actual address and your reply-to are the same thing. Another example would be if you want replies to go to multiple parties (say to your secretary and your accountant as well as you), but again, that's not the case. So why set it? > i'd > posit that outlook (among others) is indeed broken here. Well, I could say something, but that would go against the earlier discussion of playing nice with the competition. :-) > especially since > other mailers manage to get it right. > The problem is it's not a matter of "getting it right". Read RFC-822, section 4.4.4 (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc822.txt) The third point states: 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. It doesn't say what to do if more than one reply-to header exists. It does however (through examples) show that the reply-to header can contain more than one email address. It's not a big leap to assume that if there is more than one reply-to field, then they should all be concatenated together. I can see why Microsoft made this design decision. It was their call to make since the RFC is ambiguous on the subject. > i could also blame the software you use that isn't smart enough > to figure out > that this is an email list (the headers state as much) and should > therefore > use the list address Reply-to: unless specifically told otherwise. > > you could even fix it if you had the source. <grin> > Ya, I'm not going there. ;-) Ian
