Re: Proposal: new alternatives links

[Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 07:19:26PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > If you set Reply-To, like I have, to the destination where you'd like
> > > mail to be sent you have a greater chance of people respecting your
> > > preference.
> > 
> > That's not what Reply-To is for. The Reply-To address is for personal,
> > non-list mail. 
> 
> No, to quote RFC2822 (similiar language is in 822 as well):
> 
> 	"When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates 
> 	the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
>    	that replies be sent."

Both of you should stop using just the parts of the RFC you like.

Here's some more quoting:

     4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO

        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
        uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   In  the  first
        case,  the  author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
        boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
        address.   In  the  second case, an author may wish additional
        persons to be made aware of, or responsible for,  replies.   A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their
        own.

(RFC 822)

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.