Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:02:33 +0100
|
This has been discussed at least a million time... A very long argument
that leads to a rather simple situation. Either there is a GOOD REASON to
add a "Sender:" field, or it doesn't really matter and both addresses do
the same and go to the same person. If it doesn't really matter then it
shouldn't really matter whether LISTSERV uses "Sender:" or "From:" to
send its reply. If there was a GOOD REASON to add a "Sender:" field with
a different address, then there is the same GOOD REASON for LISTSERV to
use that field and not "From:", otherwise why insert it? The catch of
course is that there is a third option: the case where a "Sender:" field
was inserted that does not point to the same person, and where there
isn't any good reason for inserting that field ("it looks cute", "I
didn't read the RFCs carefully and I thought my gateway HAD to do it",
etc). In that case the gateway should be changed. I really have a hard
time understanding people who make their gateway put their (postmaster)
address in the "Sender:" field, and then complain that they actually get
mail as a result.
As for "Reply-To:", LISTSERV does not use it to send command replies.
This is a design decision, there are arguments for both cases. RFC822
does not mandate the use of the "Reply-To:" field, it is just a
suggestion. Besides, there was no automated mail server when RFC822 was
written.
Eric
|
|
|