Reply-to: Sender

[Peter Rauch]

Several people have pointed out that their software doesn't reply to
the "Reply-to" field.

Those mail user agents (software) that are configurable can be
configured to send to any of several addresses identifiable in the mail
headers, I agree. If the users don't choose to "Reply-to:" the address
in the "Reply-to:" field, then they have clearly made an conscious effort
to reply to whom they _choose_, to the list for example.

Many email programs are either not configurable, or are not
configurable to do the "right" things (the standards for how some
header information is to be handled are murky, and what is "right" is
debatable in those cases). If their software "forces" them to reply to
arbitrary addresses, what can I say. Get some conforming software (e.g.,
replies go to the Reply-to addressee), or continue to manually edit
your To: address field, or reset your default options, if you have
options, to your wishes.

I guess I consider it the user's conscious, explicit _choice_, when
they use software that doesn't behave well and isn't configurable,
and hold them responsible for the consequences of their "reply" results,
and not Taxacom.

You can lead a horse to water, but .....
Peter

> On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Peter Rauch wrote:

>> By the way, TAXACOM is configured so that the Reply-to email header
>> field is set to "Sender" (i.e., to the person who originated the
>> message), and not to Taxacom.

>> Thus, all the replies you see on Taxacom are due to a conscious,
>> explicit effort on the part of the person replying to direct that
>> reply to Taxacom. (For some, it doesn't necessarily make it right,
>> but it does indicate the sender's intention.)