Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!peltz
From: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: "Reply-To:" line
Message-ID: <1990Jan25.094946.8145@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 90 09:49:46 GMT
References: <934@grape3.UUCP>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Distribution: usa
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Lines: 25

In article <934@grape3.UUCP> motcid!king@uunet.uu.NET writes:
>        Reply-To: motcid!king@uunet.uu.NET
>
>It seems to me that this will try to first send to the site "motcid", and
>from there to "king@uunet.uu.NET".  Great, except that I'm not *at*
>uunet, I *am* at motcid.  How will this really be parsed?  As
>
>        (motcid!king) @ (uunet.uu.NET)
>or
>        (motcid) ! (king@uunet.uu.NET)

If the mailer understands Internet format, it will be the first one. I believe
that older mailers that don't understand Internet format would interpret it the
second way. The whole area is a kludge anyway, and whatever the sender uses
will probably be re-written willy-nilly by some overzealous mailer at some
stage in the process.

I'd suggest leaving the Reply-To: field out, and let your fully qualified
domain name get your mail to you. If that won't work for someone, chances
are that they'd have problems with whichever version you settle for in your
Reply-To: field as well, which means they'll have to just take a look at your
signature or know the routing to a smarter host.
--
Steve Peltz (almost) CFI-G
"Monticello traffic, Glider 949 landing 18, full stop"