-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 31 May 1995 09:53:27, you said: > I thought there was a rule in RFC822 that says: > > if there is a reply-to field, reply should go to this address > if there is no reply-to field, reply should go to the sender address > if there is neither a reply-to or a sender field, reply should go to > the from address > > So why shouldn't this scheme be followed for mails to the listserv machine ? Umm.. because RFC822 botched the semantics of Sender: - note that it's overloaded with two different meanings. Section 4.4.2 (appended) says to list the address of who sent the message *even if it is a system or process*. It also is unclear whether for a Listserv-type scenario, the Sender: should be set to 'listserv' as per the first paragraph (who actually sent the message as an agent of the author) or if it should list the author (as per the third paragraph). Of course, this would be a non-issued, except Section 4.4.4 says to send errors to that address *with the assumption that the Sender: is liveware*. The *fix* is of course to use the MAIL FROM:<address> from the RFC821 envelope - however, this field is usually not available to the Mail User Agent software such as Listserv or what-have-you. /Valdis 4.4.2. SENDER / RESENT-SENDER This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT (person, system or process) that sends the message. It is intended for use when the sender is not the author of the mes- sage, or to indicate who among a group of authors actually sent the message. If the contents of the "Sender" field would be completely redundant with the "From" field, then the "Sender" field need not be present and its use is discouraged (though still legal). In particular, the "Sender" field MUST be present if it is NOT the same as the "From" Field. The Sender mailbox specification includes a word sequence which must correspond to a specific agent (i.e., a human user or a computer program) rather than a standard address. This indicates the expectation that the field will identify the single AGENT (person, system, or process) responsible for sending the mail and not simply include the name of a mailbox from which the mail was sent. For example in the case of a shared login name, the name, by itself, would not be adequate. The local-part address unit, which refers to this agent, is expected to be a computer system term, and not (for example) a generalized person reference which can be used outside the network text message context. Since the critical function served by the "Sender" field is identification of the agent responsible for sending mail and since computer programs cannot be held accountable for their behavior, it is strongly recommended that when a computer pro- gram generates a message, the HUMAN who is responsible for that program be referenced as part of the "Sender" field mail- box specification. 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the "From" field mailbox should be used. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBL8yWrdQBOOoptg9JAQF5aAP7B6BGsFdkyx/lPDoQpTFr2MdefQjKgovN cudk17K7cBBrPAUf92pOL+BIxtN0xFglm+iz+ZS776ZoKVu5Wnp246mFTVF6mfSz B8kVqnhawMXQ2yFF7ph3Et8TUVbG7ePjRF4l8osVXxwVXW69EzflnnprCzJ3l4ED Ft863ZC9+XU= =CKHt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----