3 Mar
2005
3 Mar
'05
3:59 p.m.
On Mar 3 2005, 10:03, Tom Jennings wrote:
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with mailman -- in fact,
applying "least modification" is The Right Thing. You are only allowed
one "Reply-to:" line per message, and mailman is quite properly not
discarding existing information. I just don't think any MUA should
create a "Reply-to:" if it's the same as the "From:" or
"Sender:". As
for Pine using "Reply-to:" for replies, that's what the RFCs say you
*should* do if a "Reply-to:" is present; it's purpose is purely to
override the "From:" when replying.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
On Thu, 2 Mar 2005, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> Probably because Jules' mailer is inserting an unecessary
"Reply-to:"
> header (pointless, since it's supposed to be
used only when you
want
> replies to go to somewhere other than the
"From:"), and then
mailman is
> applying the principle of "least
modification" and *appending* the
> classiccmp address, rather than replacing the one Jules' mailer put
in.
I've noticed this with posts from one or two other listmembers.
I think Jay's right -- mailman may have changed, but it's not
necessarily incorrect. There are few subtleties involving
To:/Reply-To: processing but it's one of those things a lot of
MUAs make configurable. Pine's "reply-always-uses-reply-to" in
feature-list, for example.