Hanspeter Roth wrote: > On Oct 01 at 17:32, Will Yardley spoke: > > Most people probably don't *see* it, because most people don't read all > > the headers of their email messages.... and there are precious few mail
> It is probably up to the *MUA* rather than to people to see the > Reply-To header. You're snipping a lot here - I was primarily referring to M-F-T being ignored. Most mail clients do show 'Reply-To' if it exists (I should have been more specific). > As of Mutt it can be told to ignore Reply-To (ignore_list_replay_to). > So why shouldn't other mailers not be able to be configured to ignore > it? This only ignores reply-to *if* the 'To' and 'Reply-To' headers are the same *and* if the message is defined by 'lists foo' or 'subscribe foo' in .muttrc. Mutt can be configured to ignore Reply-To, using the strangely named 'reply_to' quadoption. Most mail clients either blindly honor Reply-To: OR give the user an option (or allow you to configure it either way). > And maybe there are also mailers which expect another header rather > than Reply-To. So if I knew those I could try to be compatible with > them. Reply-To is the only one that's an internet standard AFAIK, and the only one that's widely implemented (for email, that is - Usenet has 'Followup-To', which is what Mail-Followup-To is based on). You should be reasonably safe setting 'Reply-To'. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
