<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 6 Nov 2011, at 15:20, Felipe Contreras wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; ">On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:36 PM, John Haxby <<a href="mailto:jch@thehaxbys.co.uk">jch@thehaxbys.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">It comes down to list preference. Some lists use reply-to, some don't.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Neither one policy nor the other is correct for all lists and indeed, for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">some lists there is a very strong requirement for one policy or the other.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The numerous "lively debates" about whether reply-to is evil or the best<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">thing since sliced bread want it one way or the other for everyone. That's<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not ever going to be the case and different lists will always have different<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">policies, you'll have to learn to like it :-)<br></blockquote><br>I disagree. I have discussed this to a great extent, and I'm convinced<br>the arguments used to defend Reply-to munging have already been<br>debunked multiple times. Yes, we all would have to accept whatever the<br>list decides, but that doesn't mean they made the right choice based<br>on the evidence.<br><br>Anyway, the point I was trying to highlight is that even normal people<br>know when to click 'Reply All', it's not hard, it's available in all<br>clients, and people use it, because they have to.<br><br>Once you accept that fact, it becomes much harder to defend the<br>position that Reply-to should be munged, which goes against RFC 2822,<br>and makes certain operations impossible.</span></span></blockquote></div><br><div><br></div><div>Well, RFC 2822 has been obsoleted by RFC 5822, though I don't think that what it says about the Reply-To header has changed.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I said that some lists use reply-to and some don't and what the different lists use is up to the list maintainers. I suppose you could be disagreeing with the fact that you'll have to learn to like it (or put it with it), but that's your prerogative.</div><div><br></div><div>If you really want to change the world then this is the wrong forum. You should convince the mailmain maintainers to drop the option for a reply-to header and if you want to remove the reply-to header from the standard then you'll need to convince the right group of people on the IETF.</div><div><br></div><div>You should read what RFC5322 says about the treatment of Reply-To (section 3.6.2 and 3.6.3): you may decide that the client that you're using (gmail?) has a bug and in that case you should take it up with the maintainers of that client.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, whatever you choose to do, this discussion is inappropriate for this list, you should take it elsewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>jch (ex-very-long-time mail system developer)</div></body></html>