sjk%grape.ads.arpa@BRL.ARPA (Scott J. Kramer) (11/18/86)
Speaking of mail replies, there's an annoyance related to using a REPLY-TO field, which I currently use because the host I'm sending from isn't recognized on the Internet. When the recipient responds to a message with a REPLY-TO which also has CC addresses, the CC's are omitted in the reply; only the REPLY-TO address is used. RFC822 isn't specific about this; it just says "if REPLY-TO exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the FROM field." I'm CC'ing Header-People on this since someone there may know of a way to do what I'm trying to do (ie, have CC's get replies if I use REPLY-TO). From what I can tell, the only way is to have a valid FROM field. scott
mrose@nrtc-gremlin.arpa (Marshall Rose) (11/18/86)
Well, only Dave Crocker knows for sure, but I think this interpretation is correct: New message (reply) Old message (being replied to) ------------------ ------------------------------ To: use Reply-To: if present, otherwise use From: if present, otherwise use Sender: if present otherwise use Return-Path: (gag) cc: use To: and cc: if present (including a cc: is at the user's option-- some people prefer to omit the cc:) For an example of the rules that MH uses, look at the standard "replcomps" file distributed with MH. This is a "simple" formatting facility which builds the reply draft for the user. Note that the answer to your "have CC's get replies if I use REPLY-TO" query depends on the recipient of the message, NOT the sender. /mtr
MRC%PANDA@sumex-aim.arpa (Mark Crispin) (11/18/86)
NO!!!!! A mail composition program must NEVER, repeat, NEVER!! generate a reply to a Sender or a Return-Path. A valid From field is required in all Internet messages. The Reply-To field overrides a From for reply purposes, but that does not eliminate the need for a valid From field. Nor does the presence of Sender and Return-Path fields (neither of which have anything to do with a reply address). In this day and age when certain vendors are "certifying" their TCP/IP implementations by testing them against random Unix systems, it is vitally important that implementations which take excessive liberties with the protocols be firmly suppressed. -- Mark -- -------
mrose@nrtc-gremlin.arpa (Marshall Rose) (11/18/86)
Mark - there is a difference between working correctly and working. Working correctly is to ignore sender and return-path. However this is not often working. In a perfect world with a diligent protocol police, we would only worry about working correctly. This proceeds from a false assumption: there is neither perfection nor diligence in the Internet. It is better to know that you can fall back on sender and/or return path in case you have to (when working on a poorly constructed message), than to just say "you can't reply to that". /mtr
Alpern@ibm.com (David Alpern) (11/18/86)
I don't believe the SENDER field should ever be used when developing the list of addressees for a reply. See RFC822 on this. (Although, I'll agree, there are times.... My own reply code will use the SENDER field only if an explicit option is given by the replying human.) - Dave