On 16 Jun 2008 at 9:28, Harold Fuchs wrote: ... > > I'm also not convinced your mailer is being polite. I deliberately set my > > "reply to" address to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to avoid getting personal > > messages. Your > > mailer would not honour that etiquette if you used Reply All to one of my > > messages. > > > Sorry to reply to my own post but ... > > RFC 822: > > - If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the addresses > indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the "From" > field. > > - If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, the reply should be > sent to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.
I'm sure we've been round this loop recently. rfc2822 (the revised version) states: 'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.' Also the example given in A2: 'Note the "Reply-To:" field in the above message. When John replies .... the reply should go to the address in the "Reply-To:" field....' No great big 'MUST' - only 'indicates' and 'suggests' and 'should' - which in rfc-speak means this is advisory, not mandatory. A severe flaw, IMO, in the wording. -- Permission for this mail to be processed by any third party in connection with marketing or advertising purposes is hereby explicitly denied. http://www.scottsonline.org.uk lists incoming sites blocked because of spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Scott, Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
