Martin wrote (2021-01-01):

 O>> There is no "REPLYTO" kludge in Fidonet,

 MF> Oh?

 MF> = FUTURE4FIDO (2:310/31.3)
 MF> ==================================================== Msg  : 51 of 101
 MF>                       Snt From : Benny Pedersen
 MF> 2:460/58        02 Dec 20 12:05:12 To   : All
 MF>   Subj : ...
 MF>
===============================================================================
 MF> @MSGID: 2:460/58 0000054d
 MF> @PID: tg_BBS_v0.6.2
 MF> @CHRS: CP866 2
 MF> @TGUID: 270364579
 MF> @REPLYTO 2:460/58 270364579
 MF> Hello :)

 MF> --- tg BBS v0.6.2
 MF>
===============================================================================

Sorry, I was confused and thought it had something to do with the MSGID and
reply linking. I saw REPLYID kludges generated by some software and replyTo is
used internally by some message base formats.

I still don't understand what the REPLYTO kludge is good for in this case. It
is also unspecified as a single kludge and not covered by any standard or
proposal. There is FSC-0035 (http://ftsc.org/docs/fsc-0035.001) which defines
REPLYADDR *and* REPLYTO in combination (both have to be included in the
message).

Using the REPLYTO address and ignoring the REPLYADDR could cause issues and is
not a correct implementation of FSC-0035. If this is not intended to be an
implementation of FSC-0035, maybe the Telegram Gateway and OpenXP should use
another kludge.

---