"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
According to Folkert Rienstra :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
According to Folkert Rienstra :
Please, do not use Reply-To addresses in attribution lines.
Get a decent newsclient, or change your attribution line, like everyone else does.
I assure you, trn 4 is a decent news reader,
Obviously not if it is straying from standard practice.
and substituting in the Reply-To for From: is actually the right thing to do
No, it is not.
if the attribution line is to have anything in it resembling the to user's address.
Nonsense. Obviously Reply-To is for replying-to/following-up.
Contributor attribution has nothing got to do with follow-up.
Any decent news/email client automatically uses the Reply-To from the header
if you choose email reply (reply to sender) and reverts to From: if it is empty.
No point whatsoever to use it in attribution lines.
Any news/email client that relies on attribution lines for replies is obviously broken.
Spammers aren't stupid enough to ignore Reply-To headers - in fact, smart
ones would be scraping them in _preference_ to From: headers.
Practice says different.
And those that scrape the whole message (which is why you're worried about
my attribution,
right?)
Wrong. I don't want my Reply address used in bodies.
will scrape the reply-to _too_.
So, you're shooting yourself in the foot
Nope, it is you who is shooting me in the foot.
far more than the occasional followup from someone
using reasonable newsreader attribution defaults like me.
If it was reasonable every other newsreader would use it. Guess what.
If you want to avoid Usenet scrapers, you need to not mention your real
email address AT ALL, or munge it.
Or use that what was intended to use and isn't normally used in usenet bodies
(not the header).
Eg: "xxxxxxxx (at) yyyyyyy.zz", or .
I told you not to use my Reply addres in usenet messages and here you
go again. It's bloody obvious how to undo the spamtraps from that.
Reply-To is not a useful approach for evading Usenet email address scrapers.
If you don't want to get it scraped, _don't_ imagine that Reply-To will hide it.
I don't imagine, you are. I just see what happens in practice.