Distribution lists: anyway to set the reply-to/from to the list address?

[fcash]

Distribution lists in 5.0 seem really powerful. Especially with the integration into the GAL and being able to assign an e-mail address to them. However, there's one thing keeping them from being a full-fledged mailing list replacement: the reply-to/from headers.

When a recipient hits Reply, it puts in the address of the person who sent the message to the distribution list, and not the address of the distribution list. (Reply-To: is set to the sender of the message, not the distribution list address)

Is there a way (short of mucking around in Postfix' header re-writing) to make the distribution lists feature work more like a mailing list, where the list address goes into the Reply-To header?

[Technically, it's not a bug, as a "distribution" list is just for sending out messages, but it would be very nice indeed to be able to use this as a mailing list software replacement.]

Cheers,
Freddie

[phoenix]

I think you'll find there's a couple of RFEs in bugzilla for that type of feature, do a quick search and vote on what you find.

[Rabid]

I voted for this feature in Bugzilla #15664. You should vote for it, too.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to learn how to modify my Zimbra's Postfix configuration to rewrite the Reply-To header for inbound messages sent to specific addresses (Zimbra distribution lists). I've found no examples, but I'm starting with this information. Any help from Postfix gurus here would be appreciated.

[Rabid]

Originally Posted by Rabid

I voted for this feature in Bugzilla #15664. You should vote for it, too.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to learn how to modify my Zimbra's Postfix configuration to rewrite the Reply-To header for inbound messages sent to specific addresses (Zimbra distribution lists). I've found no examples, but I'm starting with this information. Any help from Postfix gurus here would be appreciated.

I posted a hack that worked for me, for this particular feature, in this thread.

[fcash]

Oh, yeah, guess I should have updated this thread with the workaround that I found. Oops.

Thanks for the link.