Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja
From: rja@edison.GE.COM (rja)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Reply-to lines
Message-ID: <1955@edison.GE.COM>
Date: 7 May 89 16:16:02 GMT
References: <164@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> <3164@looking.UUCP> <1428@stl.stc.co.uk> <247@shadooby.cc.umich.edu>
Organization: GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 15

In article <247@shadooby.cc.umich.edu>, 
          wisner@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) writes:
> There is no need to include a Reply-To line unless it differs from your
> From line. Doing so is simply needless repetition. Because of this, you
> may with to consider simply punting the rn code that generates Reply-To
> lines (better yet, make Reply-To one of those headers that rn defaults to
> empty, like Summary or Followup-To).

Actually, I'll disagree with Bill on this one.  The annoying sites which
have (misconfigured ?) software which mangles 'From:' lines into meaningless
unparsable strings generally seem to leave the 'Reply-to:' lines alone.

When I really care about the receipients being able to Reply, I always
include a 'Reply-to:' line.  If I had a better mailer, I'd configure it
to always include them for all outgoing traffic from .cho.ge.com.