On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:49:41 -0500
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
Hello Stefan,
>The problem is that you intend your "Reply-To:" to mean one thing, but
>other people use "Reply-To:" to mean something else (many use it
I'm struggling to think of any use other than 'use the address in the
Reply-To header to ensure you send your message to the correct place'. I
will concede that ppl may interpret that as 'in addition to' (although,
IMO, that is incorrect) 'some@other.address' but nobody should ignore
the Reply-To and send *only* to the From address.
In snail mail, I regularly get letters from companies with an address to
reply to that is *not* the sending address. If I ignore the correct
address and send my reply to the originating address, my mail will, at
best, be delayed, at worst, binned. Same principles apply to email. Or
at least, /should/.
>without knowing what they want it to mean, really :-( ), so
That, I can believe.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
This is the fifty first state of the USA
Heartland - The The
Attachment:
pgpsvfLJk0DJa.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature