Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!kyle
From: kyle@uunet.UU.NET (Kyle Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Smail 3.1 Mailing Lists -- Reply-To????
Message-ID: <121766@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 8 Feb 91 21:52:54 GMT
References: <121644@uunet.UU.NET> <20452337@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <1991Feb8.194340.32390@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA
Lines: 27

Neil Rickert writes about Tom Neff's suggestions abotu mailing list gateways:
 >  Most of what you described makes lots of sense.  But not the 'Reply-To: '
 > header.
 > 
 >  Most reasonable MUAs will not generate a reply to the 'From: ' header if
 > there is a 'Reply-To: ' present.  This means hand typing the address, probably
 > juggling multiple windows to look it up.  In short, it is an invitation to
 > mistyping and incorrect addresses.
 > 
 >  If you really must put the listname on 'Reply-To:' (and I obviously wish
 > you wouldn't), can you also put the originator's address there.  Unlike the
 > 'From: ' header, the 'Reply-To: ' can have multiple addresses.  With
 > 
 >     Reply-To: listname@my.site, originalguy@his.site (Original Posting User)
 > 
 >  then the MUA will generate both addresses, and someone who wishes to
 > only respond to the originator can edit the headers as needed.

Good idea.  I'd only add that you should put the list address at
the end of the Reply-To header so that users of Berkeley Mail can
easily rubout this address if they want to reply only to the
author (i.e. when using ~h).

BTW, a look at RFC 822 shows that multiple address _are_ allowed
in the From header.  But if From has multiple addresses the
Sender header cannot be present.  Odd.  I recommend sticking with
From and Sender.