I hate the new mail system
cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
Tue Mar 7 03:48:23 CST 2017
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Mouse wrote:
>> Yes, and it must not be in the Reply-To: field because in normal
>> cases, this field is the one used for replying, and I want to reply
>> to the list, and only to the list.
> ...that's sure what this sounds like. If so, I have little sympathy
> for your position.
So you say the Reply-To: field is to be ignored although in all other
contexts it is preferred over the From: field. Say what you want, I don't
Quotes from RFC 5322:
The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
for the writing of the message.
The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
"From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
In all cases, the "From:" field *SHOULD NOT* contain any mailbox that
does not belong to the author(s) of the message. See also section
3.6.3 for more information on forming the destination addresses for a
And cctalk at ... is neither responsible for the writing of the message nor
does it belong to the author of the message. But replies should be
directed there, so there should be a Reply-To: field containing cctalk at ...
and the From: field should contain the author's address.
EOD from my part ;-)
More information about the cctalk