From: Simon Lyall (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 03 1997 - 08:11:52 CDT
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> > The Reply-To header content specifies a reply address
> > different from the author's address given in the From header.
> > The format of the Reply-To header defined in the Message Format
> Maybe this should state that the Reply-To header SHOULD not simply a
> duplication of information already found in the Sender header?
> Itīs somewhat annoying for readers with small screens to loose one line
> only because of duplicated information.
We are tending towards leaving the Sender out of this standard since it
doesn't really have a direct use for software. People can still use it but
it has no special meaning (similar to say "Cc: " ) . We are probally
replacing some of it's function with Originator-Info or some sort of
In any case I wouldn't expect a newsreader to display it by default since
it really convers no information to the reader.
If you mean that Reply-To shouldn't be the same as From then it might be
worth writing. I would guess that a similar sort of thing could be written
What do others think?
> btw, is there an archive of the mailing list?
send "help archive" to firstname.lastname@example.org or check out the
archive on the Web at: http://www.landfield.com/usefor/
-- Simon Lyall. | Looking for Work | Mail: email@example.com "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | MT.