On 2018-03-13 10:55 AM, silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote: > > Besides, Reply-to: is exactly useful for this particular reason: I send from an address "a"; but, please don't respond to it; please respond to address "b", which I give you in the extra header. How a "reasonable mailer" may elect to ignore that _by default_ is beyond me. > > P. S. Do you immediately know what "munging" is? Oxford dictionary doesn't. And, I hardly consider setting a well-established header, or not setting it, "munging". The Thunderbird community agrees with you. That's why Thunderbird _won't_ ignore that field when it sees your example. It ignores "Reply-to:" only when looking at messages that came through a mailing list (the author, _not_ the list, is the source of the message). If the list changes address "b" into address "c", then it is abuse (dictionaries know that word). That field should be "well-established" for individuals, not for mailing lists! As Segher wrote: > Rewriting emails is just bad. Don't do it.Received on 2018-03-24 19:03:38
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.