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 :-)