reassign 202908 alpine thanks On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:00:25AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:31:52AM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > > > I thought the interpretation of mail headers other than the basic few > > > was more a matter of convention than hard and fast standards. Is the > > > client behavior undesirable, or actually out of some spec? > [...] > > Ignoring the debate about To: for a moment, using Resent-To: > > (debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org in this case) as Pine appears to do > > is explicitly forbidden by RFC 2822: > > > > Note: When replying to a resent message, replies behave just as they > > would with any other message, using the original "From:", > > "Reply-To:", "Message-ID:", and other fields. The resent fields are > > only informational and MUST NOT be used in the normal processing of > > replies. > > > > So that much at least is clearly a bug. > > I don't think debbugs should be modifying headers any more than it does, > and I think it deals with the consequences of stray mails to sub...@bugs > etc. well enough. However, Santiago, could you investigate the way pine > scatterguns replies to inappropriate addresses such as the contents of > Resent-* headers? I've noticed this problem a lot in mails from Debian > users and developers using pine. I think you refer to what happens when you asnwer "Yes" to this question: Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address? and then answer also "Yes" to this question: Reply to all recipients? I've checked and both pine and alpine behaves the same in this respect (i.e. Resent-To: header is used). As pine has just been removed from unstable and I'm now checking old pine bugs, a reassign is the appropriate thing to do. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
