On Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:52:41 EST Valdis Kletnieks said:
>On Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:28:28 EST Nick Laflamme said:
>>"Respect" says, "If the author generated a 'Reply-To:' line, I trust it."
>>"Ignore" says, "I don't trust author-generated 'Reply-To:' lines; insert
>>mine!" What I'm asking for is, "Take any Reply-To:  fields with a grain of
>>salt and add ours for completeness." Note that this is not the same as
>>"Both" because one can't assume an author-generated Reply-To:  field points
>>to the From:  address.
>
>Nick:
>
>How is "both" not what you want?  I would assume that if a user has gotten
>clued in enough to generate a Reply-to: that points elswehere, THAT HE
>WANTS HIS REPLY SENT THERE. ;)  Therefor, having "both" the list and
>any author-generated reply-to: is what you want....
 
According to LISTKEYW MEMO and my own personal experience, "Both" means
sender and list regardless of any Reply-To:  fields set by the sender.
 
From:     [log in to unmask]
To:       lstsrv-l@uga
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
 
would give a Reply-To: of
 
[log in to unmask],lstsrv-l@uga
 
for Both,Ignore
 
and
 
[log in to unmask]
 
for Both,Respect.
 
What I think was proposed and I'm endorsing would allow
 
List,Also that would yield a Reply-To: of
 
lstsrv-l@uga,[log in to unmask]
 
Just a thought,
Nick
 
ps: exercise for the reader: Reply-to=Both,Also :-)