[Mailman-Users] Reply-To Munging Considered Controversial [was: Google gmail problem]

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Dragon writes:

 > I meant to send this to the list but it only went out to the OP, damned
 > reply-to setting on this list (I know, I know, y'all think it is good, I
 > STILL disagree and always will).

Hey, feel free to write an RFC and update 2822.  For now, Reply-To is
an author header, and therefore should not be changed en route by a
conforming agent, any more than From, Date, or Message-ID.  Mailman of
all lists should take RFC 2822 seriously.

A better answer would be to get an MUA that recognizes RFC 2369
List-Post headers (and optionally a user-configurable list of
addresses to treat the same way if they are the To address), and
automatically adds those addresses to the To or CC.

N.B. I do agree with the "Considered Harmful" crowd, because I use
Reply-To on a regular basis for list traffic control, as well as for
list posts where I request a personal response for some reason.  But
really, the important thing is that 2822 is a very good excuse for a
standard, and we should adapt our software to it rather than subvert
it where our software sucks.