[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sendmail : reply-to : why do you need it ?
On 29 Jan 1998, Harvey J. Stein wrote:
> "Peter L. Peres" <plp@actcom.co.il> writes:
>
> > On 29 Jan 1998, Harvey J. Stein wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter L. Peres" <plp@actcom.co.il> writes:
> > >
> > > > Off topic: Why on earth do you need the Reply-To: field is From: is
> > > > specified ?! The only reason to use this, is when someone sends mail as
> > > > guest from another account and wants the answers at home. Setting both
> > > > fields the same might confuse some mailer or filter, causing duplicate
> > > > messages or such.
> > >
> > > Such a mailer or filter is broken.
> >
> > Yes. Shouldn't one foresee and prevent problems ?
>
> Why not just remove all programs and source code and have no problems
> whatsoever?
You mean from all the far away machines that run mail exchanges that get
confused by UNIX headers sometimes ? I aggree !
> > > > Is there something I have missed ?
> > >
> > > Yes. So that the message can, for example, be from a mailing list
> > > for which replies go back to the author, not to the mailing list.
> >
> > It was in front of my eyes and I had not seen it. It must be the SMD work
> > I do.
> >
> > Anyway, the H headers are not documented in the docs that come with
> > sendmail packages on Linux. (for the exact version, look at my mail
> > header).
>
> RTFM - the email RFCs, not the sendmail documentation.
The email RFCs have no business mentioning that a line starting with:
H?F?
in a file called /etc/sendmail.cf on some hosts running UNIX, may include
a header of type 'Reply-To:' in a sent message. And they do not. Neither
does the sendmail doc supplied on Linux, as far as I can tell.
Peter