Re: reply to ...

"Marc G. Fournier"  writes:

> 'k, isn't the Reply-To header part of an RFC somewhere?  Or is it really an
> optional thing for an MUA to follow?

The relevant RFC would be 2822.

If mailers have started ignoring reply-to it would be *because* of lists that
set it. In the presence of such lists a mailer what's a mailer supposed to do
when you ask it to send a personal response to the author? How can it figure
out whether the list has done something wacky with the reply-to header or if
it's set as intended to the original author's desired contact point?

-- 
greg