On 16.01.2014 11:01, Hartmut Steffin wrote:
I do not really understand what you discuss about, and this in such an emotional manner. It started about "Reply to Mailing list", but now you even fight about the "Reply" and "Reply all" buttons. This is ridiculous, as it is well defined and leaves NO ROOM for interpretation.
[ snip ]
So the creator of this thread got it wrong. NO BUTTON replies to the To: field, if it is overridden by the Reply-to: This is the sole purpose of the Reply-to field.
I didn't get anything wrong. I know about Reply-To, obviously (since I'm well known for hating its misuse by mailing list) and I simply didn't say anything about it in the root posting of the thread, because the mailing list in question, which I was having trouble replying to, doesn't use it (and since I run the list, it never will do something so insipidly inane.
I used "Reply All" and it did not have the proper behavior expected of "Reply All". The Reply-To header is irrelevant since it is not present; it is not the cause of the breakage.
And now, quote from your above RFC citation (5322/3.6.2):
"When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that replies be sent.
The mailing list robot is not "the author of the message" by any stretch of the imagination.