On 18 Oct 2003 at 17:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
[...]
> > The mailing list software ALREADY works according to RFC 822. Go back,
> > re-read the sentence you just posted and note that the emphasis belongs
> > on the word "reply" not on "super-sedes" [sic].
>
> You are right, I cited the wrong sentence, this one is better, also from RFC 822
>
> 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
Note that debating the contents of RFC 822 is beside the point. It has
been superceded by RFC 2822 and it has no such section -- the info about
that field has been trimmed down substantially.
> 3.6.2. Originator fields
>
>The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the
>sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field.
>... an optional
>reply-to field MAY also be included, which contains the field name
>"Reply-To" and a comma-separated list of one or more addresses.
[...]
>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 two things: first the verbiage about the 'teleconferencing' stuff
has been removed [NB: I don't believe this is just an oversight, but
rather because of a general feeling that "reply-to-list" is not such a
good thing, as has been beaten to death here and elsewhere]. Second, in
the use of reply-to the operative verb is "suggests", which clearly
implies that mail clients that permit reply-addressing options *beyond*
just "send it where the reply-to says" are proper and expected.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
