On Saturday 01 September 2018 at 15:54:49, J. Fahrner wrote:

> Am 2018-09-01 15:35, schrieb Antony Stone:
> > I also regard it as very unfriendly for people posting to a list to set a
> > reply-to header of anything other than the list address (which is
> > redundant but acceptable IMO).
>
> Right. And it also makes no sense to set a reply-to if it's the same as
> the from address. Reply-to only makes sense if it's different from from.

Agreed.

> This is normally only used by servers sending automated mail which
> cannot receive mails.

Personally I'd prefer the From address to be replyable in the first place.

> > Ultimately, though, if your anti-spam rules result in you not receiving
> > emails which you wanted to receive, then your rules are not doing what you
> > want them to and need to be adjusted.
>
> I could also argue that someone who wants to get his mail delivered,
> should configure his client properly.

Ah, but the person doing the sending has no idea what sort of blocking other
people may be doing, therefore they can't allow for every possibility of
getting through other people's filters.


Antony.

--
Wanted: telepath. You know where to apply.

                                                   Please reply to the list;
                                                         please *don't* CC me.