[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tmda-workers
Subject:    Re: -message_from_style flag for tag action?
From:       "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason () mastaler ! com>
Date:       2002-10-05 1:07:49
[Download RAW message or body]

Tim Legant <tim-dated-1034383928.df60f6@catseye.net> writes:

> Do MUAs continue to use the From: for attribution, even after
> deciding that they should reply to the Reply-To:?

Yes, because the message is still "from" the identity listed in From:.
Consider mailing lists with Reply-To: set to the list.  It wouldn't
look right for the MUA to say: ``tmda-users@tmda.net writes:''.

Conscious of spam harvesting, many MUAs are now excluding the e-mail
address from default attribution lines (e.g. Mutt, Wanderlust) and
just showing the Fullname.

> If so, that's another strong reason to switch.

One downside to this method is that for fresh meat, it will expose
your bare address to harvesters.  While I don't think you can hide
forever, it can certainly delay the inevitable to use only a dated
>From when posting to public forums.  I've never posted to a list or
newsgroup using my bare e-mail address at work, and so far it hasn't
been spammed.

Of course, jason@mastaler.com is hopelessly FUBAR so it's irrelevant
there.

Another possible downside is broken auto-responders who ignore both
Reply-To and the envelope sender address and instead respond to From.
This will create a loop between the auto-responder and TMDA.  But,
this is hopefully a rare event, and TMDA now has auto-response rate
limiting to stop this.
_________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list (tmda-workers@tmda.net)
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]