On 9/17/20 5:13 PM, Robert Elz wrote: > | I don't have list-specific email configs. > > Are there any lists for which you want to direct replies to yourself > rather than the list?
That doesn't have much to do with my email configs, which are not specific to mailing lists, since those constitute a small portion of my email. And aside from me, do you encounter almost anyone > whose MUA actually implements Reply-To properly, and replies only to you? I don't pay a lot of attention to it. > | Because that's where the incentives are. Nobody cares if you implement > | "what is right" if you fail a standards conformance test. > > I guess that depends upon your objectives. I don't care in the > slightest about conformance tests, or their results - which is why > I won't implement "cd -L" and why NetBSD refuses to supply exec'able > forms of "cd" "umask" ... Sure, but others do. You're fortunate not to have to. > | Then the standard needs to be clarified, doesn't it? > > Yes, we were kind of at that point earlier ... and we know the result > can only be "unspecified" which isn't really very helpful. You never know. Geoff might just say "well, it's obviously this." > It would be nicer if before that happens we could just agree on what > is the better result, and do that, and try to get mksh and ksh93 to > do the same. Then perhaps the standard would not need to say "unspecified". We already have two camps, and netbsd/freebsd/historical sh are the ones that print \"A\". Bash (current beta version), yash, dash, ksh93, and mksh print "A". Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/