On Wed, June 13, 2007 2:07 pm, Daniel Brown wrote: > As for the SPAM filter stuff, all of the rest makes sense, but the > Reply-to: header actually goes against the original spirit and > intention of the design. Refer to RFC 822 Part 4 Section 1 --- the > reply-to header is intended for use as an "authenticated address." > It's not really considered "authenticated" if you put the information > in manually, right? Or am I experiencing one of those contagious > Brain Fart [tm] moments?
Intent inschment. The spam filters just go with what works, mostly, and they've noticed that lazy spammers don't have Reply-to: and most decent mail clients used by Real People do, and they take a point off for it. And we could go on at length about broken email clients that do or don't handle From: without Reply-to: correctly, but the long and the sort of it is, I'd advise folks to add the Reply-to: even if it's the same as From: if you want your mail to get through and the email clients to "work right" when they go to reply to it... That's just been MY experience. -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
