On Saturday 17 February 2007 02:05, Kenny Dail wrote:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 00:13, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:33:40AM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 15:16 -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
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
A canonical response to that is
My mind was not changed, sorry. First, RFC 822 is obsolete, and RFC 2822 does not contain the quoted paragraph. Instead it says that '[w]hen the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.' - the author, not the mailing list software. There are other fields for that.
Fortunately Dovecot's set-up, does make it the author's choice.
Ah. I've read the thread too sloppily. That's pretty OK, except that it's too cumbersome to change if you for some reason should want to request off-list replies. Being a hack it would be even better if it were the *recipient's* choice, so that those with broken mailers don't have to use Reply to All, while those with good mailers can more easily reply to the author when they want to.
Again, due to Kmail's particular un-brokenness, the Reply-To munging doesn't affect me, but I'd still prefer if all mailers were fixed.
-- Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans