Rick Moen via luv-main <luv-main@luv.asn.au> writes:
The reason it's not only controversial but (since 2001) definitively a breaking of standards-compliant behaviour is that it overrides, discards, and replaces the sender's own legitimate user of that SMTP feature, as IETF reconfirmed in 2001 via RFC 2822: It is an optional SMTP feature in which the sender may indicate a desired reply-sender return address.
I also find it confusing in that some mailing lists set Reply-To: to the mailing list, and others such as LUV set it to the sender. Some mailing lists I have to "reply-to-sender" to reply to the list, others I have to use "group-reply", yet others I have to use "group-reply" and then manually alter the To: and Cc: headers to ensure I don't get flamed for CCing people who don't want to get CCed. Yes, sure there are lots of debates and dicussions about which one is "right" or "wrong", however it is a shame that there isn't a single standard that everyone adheres to for how to process the headers for mailing lists. Will stop there, before I start complaining about the lack of flying pigs in my area. -- Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/