> > > >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
> > There are many RFC's in use as "standards" that never got beyond being > > draft standards "officially" I believe. > well their point seems to be that since it doesn't appear in rfc 2822, > it's likely that the proposal was rejected. Even less "official" than the above draft, there is http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html which gives some arguments about why implementing MFT. > i don't disagree with your point; however it's difficult to push other > vendors to add this feature to their products if it's _not_ a standard. > if outlook express were the one pushing it instead of mutt, perhaps > there might be some chance of it being adopted without being standard. > at this point, almost no 'popular' MUAs honor this header. Any idea of which MUAs are implementing MFT, apart from Mutt? Gnus? It seems that some MTA (qmail at least) also set a MFT header if they are given a list of mailing-lists. > possibly so. however as i've said, insisting that we (ie mutt users) > are doing the Right Thing is a bit presumptious (even if it's true). This might not be the Right Thing, but this is the best in absence of any other solution to the Reply-To issues... -- Cedric
