Friday, December 10, 1999, 4:19:19 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> It is a perfectly valid address as per the mail server running on
> my unconnected domain. RFC822 states that it should be authenticated, but
> does not state who by.
Then it is your own fault that mail would fail. Again, I ask, what
prevents you from putting a valid email in your from header?
> Correct. But reread RFC822. This is only one of the intended uses
> of the Reply-To header.
The fact stands that it is an intended use, despite what MANY mail
administrators might think.
> The use of the Reply-To header to indicate that a reply should goto another
> address because the From header address cannot receive a reply is another
> one.
Right, and neither are given priority.
> In fact, given such an option, setting up a mailing list to rewrite the
> Reply-To header is broken behaviour - unless the intent of the list admin is
> to put such subscribers at a disadvantage.
No, it is not. It is an alternate use of the Reply-To. It is an
acceptable use under RFC822. Considering what you wrote about the Sender
field having the Sender, in this case, the mailing list, set the Reply-To, is
perfectly valid and not broken behavior.
Any user who has an address in their from field which isn't routable (a
highly unlikely event in today's day and age unless people are willfully being
a pain) they have other alternatives to get the information to the people. A
signature, for example.
> You may personally not like such use of headers. But if you want
> to get the world to follow in your footsteps, write up a new RFC and get
> it approved as a standard.
Why, the RFC which is out there is quite clear that Reply-To is perfectly
acceptable. I'm tired of the rest of the world ignoring this RFC because of
their own personal preference.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
