I've been reading RFC 2822 on the subject of Reply-To and noticed that the content of Reply-To is a list. ie you can have more than one address listed under a Reply-To:
reply-to = "Reply-To:" address-list CRLF address-list = (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-list address = mailbox / group mailbox = name-addr / addr-spec name-addr = [display-name] angle-addr angle-addr = [CFWS] "<" addr-spec ">" [CFWS] / obs-angle-addr group = display-name ":" [mailbox-list / CFWS] ";" [CFWS] display-name = phrase mailbox-list = (mailbox *("," mailbox)) / obs-mbox-list
eg:
Reply-To: list@foo.conm, list@bar.com, claw@kanga.nu
This would seem to potentially remove one of the complaints on Reply-To: lists -- that they nix/kill crossposting, and lose the actual semantic value of the original Reply-To header.
Ergo, if a given list is configured to do reply-To munging and it receives a message with Reply-To set, then it makes sense to _ADD_ the list's address to the Reply-To: header if present, rather than replacing it.
-- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.