Hi.
I read a lot about Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To recently (including in
the mutt-users archive) and my conclusion is that:
- Mail-Followup-To is not a standard and is supported by very few MUA's.
- Reply-To should be able to do the right thing, even if some
implementations are fo
>
> Any comments?
>
> --
try my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
mQGiBDlYQxYRBACHDSw/JNcmvvZeQQMKq954FHbiyJHyNZ+clwwdFPzIOsxiq3AW
r5T1Xk2mPYqF8cQEqUQME8jHGaBUf2ty+zn+C/2In80LzZ3KslY
On 2000-06-27 20:40:16 -0700, fman wrote:
> try my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> mQGiBDlYQxYRBACHDSw/JNcmvvZeQQMKq954FHbiyJHyNZ+clwwdFPzIOsxiq3AW
> r5T1Xk2mPYqF8cQEqUQ
[ Sorry, there is no In-Reply-To field because I forgot to set the
correct headers in my original message, and I couldn't extract the
message-id from the archive... ]
On 2000-06-27, fman wrote:
> try my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My suggestion wasn't clear enough. Here's what I was proposin
Hugo Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 27 Jun 2000:
> Hi.
Hello!
> I read a lot about Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To recently (including in
> the mutt-users archive) and my conclusion is that:
> - Mail-Followup-To is not a standard and is supported by very few MUA&#x
At 11:55 PM 6/29/00 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
[...]
>I'm also not aware of whether there is any specified way to have
>Reply-To set to more than one address. You can either have multiple
>Reply-To headers, one address per header, or you can have multiple
>addresses in one header. I think that
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?
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 07:16:33AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
>
> And what's the proper way of doing multiple addresses?
> One, single Reply-To or multiple headers?
RFC822 update specifies at most one Reply-To.
"If the from field contains more than one mailbox specification in
the mailbox
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> 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 add
On 2000-06-30 01:10:22 -0400, Hugo Haas wrote:
> It makes sense. Now I'm convinced that Mail-Followup-To
> is useful. I'll still be frustrated, but I am
> convinced. :-)
> I found an Internet Draft about it, but it expired 2
> years ago:
> http://qmail.edge.ne.jp/mta/ietf/draft-ietf-drums
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 30 Jun 2000:
> > Maybe it's time to write a new one.
>
> According to DJB, the IETF is not going to accept
> Mail-Followup-To, which, he claims, is the reason why he
> doesn't write any more drafts.
Hmm, that's DJB... Wonder what the real story
11 matches
Mail list logo
