Re: Understanding response protocols

On Mon June 6 2005 21:52, Hector Santos wrote:
> Cc: "Hector Santos" <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>: host mail.winserver.com[208.247.131.9] said:
    550 Return Path not verifiable. (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Please fix your buggy server.

> > Author (or author's UA per author's configuration) sets Reply-To: good.
> > List expander sets Reply-To: very bad.  RFC 2822 says "When the
> > "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the
> > author of the message suggests that replies be sent".  N.B. "author",
> > not anybody or anything else.
> 
> Well, life is about flux and change.
[...]
> I'm not telling you nothing. but with a list system, this isn't a 1 to 1
> communications anymore.   The "list" concept works on the basis the list
> address is an "alias user" mailbox which has reached it's final destination.
[...]

1. mailing lists have been around since well before RFC 724 (1977).  Note
   that RFC 724 also defines the semantics of the Reply-To field as an
   author-supplied suggestion for responses and specifically mentions
   "text-message teleconferencing", i.e. mailing lists.
2. "alias" and "mailing list" are different. See RFC 2821 section 3.5.1.

> char *ReplyToSender()
> {
>   char *to_address = reply_to_address;
>   if (to_address empty) to_address = from_address;

No and no.  Reply-To != Sender.  From != Sender.