Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do MUAs continue to use the From: for attribution, even after > deciding that they should reply to the Reply-To:?
Yes, because the message is still "from" the identity listed in From:. Consider mailing lists with Reply-To: set to the list. It wouldn't look right for the MUA to say: ``[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:''. Conscious of spam harvesting, many MUAs are now excluding the e-mail address from default attribution lines (e.g. Mutt, Wanderlust) and just showing the Fullname. > If so, that's another strong reason to switch. One downside to this method is that for fresh meat, it will expose your bare address to harvesters. While I don't think you can hide forever, it can certainly delay the inevitable to use only a dated >From when posting to public forums. I've never posted to a list or newsgroup using my bare e-mail address at work, and so far it hasn't been spammed. Of course, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is hopelessly FUBAR so it's irrelevant there. Another possible downside is broken auto-responders who ignore both Reply-To and the envelope sender address and instead respond to From. This will create a loop between the auto-responder and TMDA. But, this is hopefully a rare event, and TMDA now has auto-response rate limiting to stop this. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
