Reply-to (was Re: Storage drive problems)

[Jeremy Turner]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:27:14PM -0500, Monty J. Harder wrote: 
> On Apr 6, 2005 3:06 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald at ethereal.com> wrote:
> > 
> > respectively.  I manage a couple of lists where reply-goes-to-list
> > is the expected behavior, so that's how Mailman is configured.
> 
> The thing that needs to be clarified here is that the listserv should
> be configured to add a Reply-To with its own address, but should not
> delete any existing Reply-To that may already be on the message.

Is that possible?  Can you have multiple Reply-To: headers?  Is there a
setting in mailing list software that will allow you to add a Reply-To:
header, rather than overwrite the existing one?

>From the 3 RFCs that I found, it looks like they don't comment on this
issue directly, just specifying what format the header should be.  The
third reference recommends that you really shouldn't use the Reply-To:
header unless you absolutely have to.

Jeremy


Pardon the long quoted text:

>From RFC 1036 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html)

2.2.  Optional Headers

2.2.1.  Reply-To

	This line has the same format as "From".  If present, mailed
	replies to the author should be sent to the name given here.
	Otherwise, replies are mailed to the name on the "From" line.
	(This does not prevent additional copies from being sent to
	recipients named by the replier, or on "To" or "Cc" lines.)  The
	full name may be optionally given, in parentheses, as in the
	"From" line.

>From RFC 822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html)

4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO

	This field provides a general  mechanism  for indicating  any
	mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
	uses for this feature can  be distinguished.   In  the  first
	case,  the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
	boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
	address.   In the  second case, an author may wish additional
*	persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies.  A
*	somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
*	teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
*	services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To"
*	field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then
*	participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee
*	the correct distribution of any submission of their own.
	
	Note: The Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport
	service, at the time of final deliver.  It is intended to
	identify a path back to the orginator of the message.  The
	Reply-To" field is added by the message originator and is
	intended to direct replies.
	
4.4.4.  AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO

	For systems which automatically generate address lists for
	replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:
	
	o The Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any
	problems in transport or delivery of the original messages.  If
	there is no Sender" field, then the From" field mailbox should
	be used.
	
	o The Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically,
	in a recipient's reply message.
	
*	o 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.
	
	o 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.
	
	Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with the
	person that initiated the message transfer.  In such cases, it
	is reasonable to use the Sender" address.
	
*	This recommendation is intended only for automated use of
*	originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies
*	may not also be sent to other recipients of messages.  It is up
*	to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what
*	additional facilities will be provided.

>From RFC 2076 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2076.html)

3.5 Response control

	This header is meant to indicate where the sender wants replies
	to   Unfortunately, this is ambiguous, since there are different
	kinds of replies, which the sender may wish to go to different
	addresses. In particular, there are personal replies intended
	for only one person, and group replies, intended for the whole
	group of people who read the replied-to message (often a mailing
	list, a newsgroup name cannot appear here because of different
	syntax, see "Followup-To" below.).
	
	Some mail systems use this header to indicate a better form of
	the e-mail address of the sender.  Some mailing list expanders
	puts the name of the list in this header.  These practices are
	controversial.  The personal opinion of the author of this RFC
	is that this header should be avoided except in special cases,
	but this is a personal opinion not shared by all specialists in
	the area.