On 2010-10-19 9:00 AM, James Wilde wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2010, at 13:50 , Charles Marcus wrote: > >> On 2010-10-18 6:27 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: >>> Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the >>> OP on the messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use >>> Reply All?
>> The purpose of Reply-To header is to manage how replies are >> handled. Reply All is not necessary if the Reply-To header is >> correct and you use a standards compliant mail client that doesn't >> ignore it. > Unfortunately, Charles, about 99.3% of the general public, or, say, > 87.2% of the people on this list don't have such a mail client. At > the moment I'm using Mac Mail, which pulls the sender's name if I > press Reply, and everybody's name if I press Reply All. As far as I > remember Outlook has the same characteristics. I can't remember > what T-Bird did on Linux and I haven't used pine in a hundred years. > > I think this is probably because Reply To is not set in most > clients, and is filled in on sending from the Sender field. Actually, this is more likely a problem with the current list server MUNGING the Reply-To headers, qand/or incorrect testing methodology (no offense). When the Reply-to is not set, then the right thing to do is to reply to the 'From' header, and if it isn't set, to the envelope sender. Thunderbird has honored correctly set Reply-To headers for as long as I can remember, and I'd be very surprised if you are actually right - or even remotely close - about your estimated numbers. -- Best regards, Charles -- E-mail to [email protected] for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
