7 Mar
2017
7 Mar
'17
6:58 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Fred Cisin via cctalk once stated:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Eric Christopherson via cctalk
wrote:
Well, RFC-5322 allows a mailbox-list in the From: header, and an
address-list for the Reply-To:, I don't think this is illegal. And I just
noticed this RFC:
6854 Update to Internet Message Format to Allow Group Syntax in the
"From:" and "Sender:" Header Fields. B. Leiba. March 2013.
(Format:
TXT=20190 bytes) (Updates RFC5322) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (DOI:
10.17487/RFC6854)
Given that, I think adding to the Reply-To: header is kosher now.
-spc (Hmm ... looks like I have to update my email parser ... )
What makes it so that other mailing lists
don't unsubscribe people when
bounces occur?
This list displays (not "full headers"):
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
From: Eric Christopherson via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: Eric Christopherson <echristopherson at gmail.com>,
"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
Some yahoos would do it as:
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
From: "Eric Christopherson echristopherson at gmail.com [cctalk]"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
Notice, that they also munge the From:, but they include the author's
email address buried within the munged From:.
It is not the "correct" From: and Reply-to:,
but, apparently some "modern" systems will not tolerate it done
"correctly".
Given that it is NOT going to be done "correctly", which among us are
capable of successfully working around it?
This discussion is a little like a pedantic grammar argument.