On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote:
All good thoughts/feedback. > 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.) I wouldn't worry too much about this for a few reasons. We're both on lots of mailing lists filled with email geeks who pay attention to the to: and regularly override it. And occasionally forget to. I suspect this might be an edge case. When I compare it to what I've observed when doing it from the ESP side of things, the only mis-parsing of a reply-to (replacing it with the from address) that I ever saw was a specific, well-known, occasionally irritating MUA and it only applied to its sending of automated out-of-office replies. -- Al Iverson | Chicago, IL | (312) 725-0130 Anti-spam: dnsbl.com and spamresource.com @aliverson on twitter | www.baconrodeo.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
