On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 06:39:43PM -0600, Mike Hicks wrote: > Erm, can you explain why Reply-To is so evil? Go ask google to tell you about "reply-to considered harmful". Short version: Most mail clients have separate 'reply to sender' and 'reply to sender and all recipients' commands. Some (like mutt) even have a third option, 'reply to mailing list'. Many people think that lists should not override 'reply to sender' to mean 'reply to list' - if the user wants to send a reply back to the list, he has other commands available for that purpose. > I set a Reply-To address on my outgoing mail (which is probably bad, since > some mailing lists won't touch a pre-existing header), so people know to > reply to my @csom address rather than my IP. No, you've got it backwards. I've never heard anyone complain that individual users shouldn't add reply-to headers. The lists in question are broken by adding reply-to headers to (most) list mail and doing so in a manner which doesn't take situations like yours (you add a reply-to header, but don't want to prevent replies to the list) into account. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss