On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:46:32 +0300 (EEST) Nerijus Baliunas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:04:18 -0400 (EDT) Richard Welty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RW> if there isn't, there probably ought to be. > > Why? First (generic) reason is that any header should be settable for a particular message. Why would you allow modifying From but not Reply-To? Next, more specific, reason. Suppose I send to all the people working in the company an announce that the project I'm working on reaches the 1.0 stage. I'd further like that comments be directed to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, an alias. The Reply-To header is, in my opinion, the right way to do it. > You can set Reply address in folder properties. Whenever I wanted to use Reply-To, it was only for one shot. Not something I'd like to permanently link to a folder. > Besides, using Reply-To is considered bad. I agree that reply-to munging is a bad attitude for mailing-lists, but not at all in other cases. -- Xavier Nodet "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
