rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (05/07/89)
In article <247@shadooby.cc.umich.edu>, wisner@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) writes: > There is no need to include a Reply-To line unless it differs from your > From line. Doing so is simply needless repetition. Because of this, you > may with to consider simply punting the rn code that generates Reply-To > lines (better yet, make Reply-To one of those headers that rn defaults to > empty, like Summary or Followup-To). Actually, I'll disagree with Bill on this one. The annoying sites which have (misconfigured ?) software which mangles 'From:' lines into meaningless unparsable strings generally seem to leave the 'Reply-to:' lines alone. When I really care about the receipients being able to Reply, I always include a 'Reply-to:' line. If I had a better mailer, I'd configure it to always include them for all outgoing traffic from .cho.ge.com.