Date:	Mon, 15 May 1995 18:35:27 +0100 (BST)
From:	Philip Taylor (RHBNC) <CHAA006 AT vms DOT rhbnc DOT ac DOT uk>
Reply-To:	P DOT Taylor AT Vms DOT Rhbnc DOT Ac DOT Uk
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Cc:	CHAA006 AT vms DOT rhbnc DOT ac DOT uk
Subject:	[Ab]use of `reply-to: ' ?

Stephen --

>> It is *not* legal to rewrite the headers in the fashion suggested.
>> According to RFC822, the Reply-To: header is for the use of the
>> *sender*, to redirect replies in case she is using a different
>> account, is moving, is having mail problems, or any of a thousand
>> other possibilities.

I'm sorry: you are either working from an entirely different version
of RFC-822 to that to be found on the net, or you are being _very_
selective in your reading.  Let me quote exact chapter and verse
of the relevant section of the text:

     4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO

        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
        uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   [...]        A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their
        own.

This is exactly the use to which I was suggesting it properly be put.

					Philip Taylor, RHBNC.

- Raw text -