From: markus schnalke <meillo@marmaro.de>
  To  : <masqmail@marmaro.de>
  Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:44:12 +0200

Re: [masqmail] Reply-To header (was: Error: unexpected response from TLS/SSL wrapper)

[2009-05-26 22:16] Grzegorz Adamiak <gadamiak@docucollab.com>
> --- markus schnalke [2009-05-26 21:13]:
> >>
> >>BTW, why the "Return-Path" header in messages from list points to your 
> >>address instead of the list's one?
> >
> >Don't know ;-) I changed something now ... we'll see.
> 
> Sorry, my mistake. Your Return-Path was OK. It should point to your 
> address, as it's used to return mail if it fails to be delivered.

Just found the same out and changed it back.


> I thought about "Reply-to", which is absent and should point to maillist
ARY"M9 
> address (<masqmail@marmaro.de>). See RFC5322, 3.6.3. "Destination 
> Address Fields", <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt>;.

So, I don't need to but MAY provide the header. About its usage:

	When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es)
	to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.

There are reasons to not provide the header. See:

	http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

In `mutt', which I use, it's easy to distinguish the kind of reply:
`L' for reply to list; `r' for reply to sender.

There are lists that do it this way and ones that do it the other way.
I'd like to keep the behavior like it is (= no Reply-To header).


Anyway, thanks for the hint.


meillo

signature.asc