Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2012 07:14:34, Michael J. Tubby B.Sc G8TIC wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Rather than re-write the Reply-To: header why not just strip it off? The
>> Reply-To header is used in preference to the From: for the return
>> address, if it exists - but there's no requirement for it - AFAIK.
>
> It may not be a requirement, but stripping the Reply-To: header is likely make
> it more difficult for users to deal with mailing lists, because I think a
> Reply will default to being sent to the author rather than the mailing list.
I personally would still strip any Reply-To: with an internal domain in
it - fixing it is hard work and liable to unexpected results, stripping
it is easy. If people want Reply-To: then they should use valid
addresses in them.
In general, a setup that mangles email addresses in headers is already
skipping through a mine field. Just think about header signing...
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham ------------------------------ nigel@??? ]
[ Ellipsis Intangible Technologies ]
