[Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling

J C Lawrence claw@2wire.com
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:48:29 -0700

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:39:10 -0400 
Jay R Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:34:05PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:

>> 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:
>> 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.

> Assuming that mailers correctly handle such a Reply-to.

True.  If we insert the list address at the head of the reply-to
list then broken MUAs would seem unlikely to change their behaviour
(or so quick testing here with a couple such MUAs suggests).

BTW: Do Mutt et al correctly handle multi-address Reply-To?

> And note that this message arrived here with no To: header, FWIW.

My bad.  To save myself typing I started the message by doing a
group reply to a -dev post and whacking the headers to match (which
I then failed to do cleanly).  

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.