Re: mail-followup-to / mail-copies-to

On Sat May 28 2005 11:54, Paul Jakma wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 28 May 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:

> >> Lots of MUAs will reply to both [email protected] and
> >> [email protected] for 'reply'.
> >
> > That's what the author suggested for responses.  Why do you say
> > "things go wrong"?
> 
> Sorry, but you seem too knowledgeable to not be aware of the 
> potential problems of using Reply-To in public mails. Do I have to 
> spell it out? (I thought I already mentioned the Reply-To risk).

You claimed that it was perceived to be a problem based on a misinterpretation
of the meaning of Reply-To as "private".  The problem is with that
misinterpretation (apparently yours).
 
> If use of Reply-To as a way to indicate ones own mailbox were 
> deprecated, and instead it were mandated that From should always be 
> the author's mailbox, then Reply-To would be more suitable for the 
> purpose I need.

Unlikely to happen -- it is a legitimate use and may be appropriate
in some contexts.
 
> >> Would it be an idea to act on this suggestion?
> >>
> >> 1. Specifically, more implementations supporting MFT.
> >
> > Nobody has yet produced a coherent suggestion along those lines that
> > gained any sort of consensus.  Keith Moore identified a number of serious
> > problems with MFT.  So it's highly unlikely.
> 
> Could you answer the question rather than my footnote? :)

Oh, it was supposed to be a footnote?  If you meant restricting use of
Reply-To, no, I don;t think it would be appropriate.