Re: [xwt-users] Reply-To

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:26:55PM -0800, Adam Megacz wrote:
> 
> Is there a FAQ on this?  I'd like to hear both sides of the argument
> without evoking a flamewar here.

The con argument, on dozens of places on the internet:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html 

On the other hand, from the RFC (822) itself:

4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO

        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
        uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   In  the  first
        case,  the  author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
        boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
        address.   In  the  second case, an author may wish additional
        persons to be made aware of, or responsible for,  replies.   A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their
        own.

I think mailinglists neatly fall into the '"text message teleconferencing"
groups equipped with automatic distribution services' category, so the
RFC explicitly notes this as a valid use of reply-to.

-- 
Emiliano