On 5/3/2010 4:08 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Dave CROCKER<[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, by way of fantasizing an example: when John Levine sends me a greeting
>> --
>> remember I said this was a fantasy -- through you guys and I hit Reply to
>> thank
>> him... he doesn't get it.
>>
>> From a user's perspective, this does not seem like such a winning scenario.
>
> We're off in the weeds here, but a reply-to header would work just
> fine to direct the reply message to the right person.
The weeds are certainly plentiful around here, but some consideration of
scenarios that could be acceptable might be helpful.
The reply-to is a good point. I assume that it would be something like:
From: John Levine <[email protected])
Reply-to: John Levine <[email protected]>
One wrinkle is that MUAs are not all that consistent in processing Reply-to's,
based on my own experiences. I post to mailing lists with a different from and
reply-to and get replies to one or the other or both.)
> There's other reasons MH's scenario as described is a pretty good
> practice, from the perspective of an ESP....stable domain identifier,
> FBL participation at ISPs that tie it to authentication, etc.
>
> But then the flip side of that is, the friend -- you -- will get an
> email that doesn't actually have your friend's address in the from
> field. Confusing, and could potentially result in higher spam
> complaints than otherwise.
Most MUAs do not show the From: field email address. So the disparity you cite
is not necessarily something that most recipients will even see.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
