Bruno Wolff III writes:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Charles McLagan writes:
> > > Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
> > > makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
> > > work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
> > > if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
> > >
> > > So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
> > > yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?
> >
> > No. Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
>
> And what if the sender isn't on the list?
The list doesn't munge Reply-To, so the sender can set Reply-To: if he
wants a reply. That's what Reply-To is for, NOT for discarding and
replacement by the list address.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts. The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | itself already a crime.
