On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Oliver Dawid wrote:
> hi dman,
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, dman wrote:
>
> > No, No, No, and No! Don't do that! If you do that, how will you ever
> > know who wrote the message? And suppose you (at some point in time)
>
> (-:
>
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> thanks. i agree with most of the aspects the author says about munging the
> Reply-To in email headers.
>
> > and consider upgrading to a mailer that comprehends mailing lists.
> > The problem is an end-user tool (MUA) problem, not a MTA problem.
>
> yes you are right - i really agree with you. i just want to find a way, to
> make it easy for all users (win and linux with all kind of brain-dead
> mua's) to get their mail to the list easily. this is only for one special
> list - i dont consider using it for the rest.
All of the most common mail clients automatically support the 'reply to
all' concept. As long as your list address is in the To: line (which it
will pretty much always will be), then the "reply to all" or "group
reply" or "reply to all recipients" (or whatever its called, its usually
quite obvious) function in their mailer will work, and the "reply to
sender only" function will also work properly. If you add/change
reply-to, then the "reply to sender only" function will probably not
work at all in any mail cient.
>
> ok rewriting the From: line isn't the solution although in the envelope
> the sender is still present (but who is looking at the envelope).
Actually, it is not. Most list software specifically *does* (and
*should*) change the envelope sender address so that if messages it
sends bounce they go back to the list processor (possibly the admin of
the list, possibly an automated processor).
> can you tell me, how to add a Reply-To: if it is not there? this would be
> the best way i can think of. like
>
> if $reply_to is unset
> then
> $reply_to = my_list@mydomain
> endif
>
> can i do that?
That wouldnt really be the right way to do it, no. In fact, that wouldnt
work at all.
Go read the page at the URL again. While you say you agree, you seemed
to have missed the point.
