On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:39:10 -0400 Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:34:05PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: >> I've been reading RFC 2822 on the subject of Reply-To and noticed >> that the content of Reply-To is a list. ie you can have more >> than one address listed under a Reply-To: ... >> Ergo, if a given list is configured to do reply-To munging and it >> receives a message with Reply-To set, then it makes sense to >> _ADD_ the list's address to the Reply-To: header if present, >> rather than replacing it. > Assuming that mailers correctly handle such a Reply-to. True. If we insert the list address at the head of the reply-to list then broken MUAs would seem unlikely to change their behaviour (or so quick testing here with a couple such MUAs suggests). BTW: Do Mutt et al correctly handle multi-address Reply-To? > And note that this message arrived here with no To: header, FWIW. My bad. To save myself typing I started the message by doing a group reply to a -dev post and whacking the headers to match (which I then failed to do cleanly). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
