Dieter Stussy wrote: > Micro$oft Outlook Express makes it clear that it is to route replies > to a mail box other than the mailbox account that originated them - in > its help section.
Outlook's explanation is wrong. From RFC 2822: The originator fields also provide the information required when replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field, replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the "From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the reply. Note that in the absences of a Reply-To: field, replying to the From: address is a SHOULD, not a MUST. So the truly paranoid may wish always to include a Reply-To: > but I stand by my view that a positive value (toward spaminess) > should still be assigned when it is identical to the "From" header > value. That's not my experience. For some spams, especially phishing spams, Reply-To: is very different because the sender wants to trick the recipient into replying to a throwaway address even if the purported From: address looks official. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
