3 Feb
2000
3 Feb
'00
4:23 a.m.
(I just had to retype the mail, since my mailer did only reply to Rich)
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:00:33PM +0000, Hans Franke
(Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de) wrote:
> Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the
> only real chance to go along.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822
specifies that the Reply-To:
is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to
suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify?
As spc already cited (sp?) RFC 822 4.4.3 (paralell while I answered),
he missed out the 'Note' you're going on. Just to put up the question
who is the originator. Well, the originator is maybe the person who
did send the mail ... or is it Majordomo ? Since Majordomo is not only
a forwarding thing, but rather processing the mail and generating a
new one. Anyway, I think this is advocates talk. Even if I'd agree to
set the prior sender to be the originator (*1), The forwarding/list
service should provide the service of setting reply-to as a courtsy
to all te other users - if the 'originator' forgot to do so. Just as
an usage of the Best-Possible-Result rule.
Gruss
H.
*1 - just to come up with the question if, in this case, if the first
sender is the originator, then, why are there different originators
for all follow up replys ? They are just 'some black boxes' processing
the information and generating new mails :))
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK