my first test
joe at begriffs.com
Mon Sep 24 23:37:24 UTC 2018
> I am hitting "group reply" in Mutt to this message from Dave and we will see
> what happens.
Looks good, I see it in the archive.
> I thought the "Reply-To:" header was there to take care of issues like this.
If the list relayed a message as:
From: "Sally Sender via Friends" <friends at talk.begriffs.com>
Reply-To: "Sally Sender" <sally at sender.com>
Then a regular reply would only go to Sally, and I think you'd still need to use a group reply in order to include the list. Actually it's not clear whether a group reply would suffice in all clients, because Reply-To might be considered a *replacement* for From rather than an additional sender.
The RFC says:
> When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.
This also indicates that Reply-To is traditionally thought of as a header that the original author sets (e.g. to ask that the reply goes a work email despite the message being sent from a personal email). The Sender header seems more appropriate to express the role of the relay. Not to mention the three arguments I made earlier against From-munging.
In any case, thanks for indulging me as I explore these topics. It's been very educational to dig through the standards and see how email was originally designed to handle various use cases. I think mail clients, especially webmail, dumb the experience down.
More information about the Friends