On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:48:29PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: > > 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).
Indeed. > BTW: Do Mutt et al correctly handle multi-address Reply-To? Unknown. I'll have to try it. > > 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). ...exposing a bug in Mutt: it will find a list-name in a CC header... as long as there *is* a To header. It couldn't tell the message in question was a mailing list message. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015 "Usenet: it's enough to make you loose your mind." -- me _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
