[Dovecot] Reply-To header [was: Re: quota warning]

[Richard Laager]

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 20:38 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 13:26 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > As it is now, almost every message I send, I have to manually delete the 
> > 'To:', and then change the 'CC:' to 'To:'... just as I did on this one.
> 
> But I have Reply-To set to this list, so this shouldn't be necessary?

I see you've added a Reply-To header later. The canonical response in
this case is for someone to reference:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

> Yes, but even though you want them it doesn't mean that everyone else
> wants them. That's why I always hit Reply-to-all and if anyone is
> bothered by the duplicates they can enable the Reply-to-list flag.

Or get a mail client that eliminates duplicates based on message IDs, or
use a simple procmail recipe to eliminate duplicates based on message
IDs, or any number of other solutions...

The fact that you're now doing Reply-To munging and yet arguing that
people do the Right Thing for duplicates seems inconsistent.

Every time this discussion comes up anywhere, the answer is still the
same... There's no reason for Reply-To munging except that people have
bad software and refuse to fix it and would rather have a workaround
implemented for them, at the cost of those of us who use decent
software. I realize this is your list and you can do what you want, but
my vote is strongly against Reply-To munging.

Richard

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070216/808b95ad/attachment.pgp