Stan Ryckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 29 Jun 2000:
> It's perfectly fine, and has been since at least RFC-822 (1982).
> Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't broken MUAs out there...
And what's the proper way of doing multiple addresses?
One, single Reply-To or multiple headers?
In any case it looks like your mailer picked the entire header
contents and added "@ma.ultranet.com" after it, for some reason.
Proof enough that mailers do weird things with Reply-To headers.
> ps - your post said Reply-To you, but MFT the list and Hugo.
> What should that combination mean, I wonder?
It means that private replies should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mail followups (list replies) should go to the list and Hugo.
This is *one* example where trying to set up Reply-To properly would
fail, as:
1) I'm required to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the From address, or
I can't post to the list without approval
2) I still want to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] as my public address for
replies that are sent privately to me
3) I want to indicate that I'm subscribed to mutt-users, so don't
need private copies on list discussion
Regards,
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs /
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
