Is there supposed to be a question there, or is that a response to someone
else's question?
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> I have a couple of older Android books at home, and I have dabbled with
> it, but I have a possible task at work,, and I should be able to buy a
>
Derek Martin wrote:
> in any fashion. Mutt properly ignored your reply-to header and did
> what I asked it to do. It had *absolutely no effect* as I said.
With the caveat that I did not list Mutt by name but that's quibbling.
Point is, as you've experienced yourself, Mutt's behavior is not
consi
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:25:09PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> > Here's why it IS thoughtless: You're talking about the general case of
> > lists setting the reply-to header to the *list* address. I'm talking
> > about setting it to the *sender's* address. The former is ve
I have a couple of older Android books at home, and I have dabbled with
it, but I have a possible task at work,, and I should be able to buy a
few books. I'm familiar with the SDK to some extent.
The spec is a few vague words at the moment, and the app I write is (or
Should) never go to production
Richard Pieri wrote:
> You are incorrect. When the Reply-To field is set then all replies use
> the Reply-To field contents for the new To field. This is unexpected
> when reply to list would otherwise use the list's address. This is
> unexpected when reply to all would otherwise use all addresses
Derek Martin wrote:
> Here's why it IS thoughtless: You're talking about the general case of
> lists setting the reply-to header to the *list* address. I'm talking
> about setting it to the *sender's* address. The former is very bad,
> for the reasons you suggest. The latter has NONE of the effe
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:30:43PM -0400, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> > Lists setting or rewriting Reply-To headers punishes users of
> > good, open source mail programs and rewards users of broken,
> > proprietary mail programs like Outlook.
On this, Richard and I agree.
> OK. So if the list has a
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:10:48PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> > If a mailing list--which is already a special case of e-mail
> > usage--*ADDS* a reply-to header to an e-mail which matches the from
> > header of the message, when none previously existed, the net effect is
>
Robert Krawitz wrote:
> OK. So if the list has a policy that all replies should be directed
> to the list rather than the author, what should the list do to
> "encourage" members to honor that policy?
I don't think I can help you with this. I don't see how ham-fisted,
draconian policies encourage
On Wed, 21 May 2014 14:10:48 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
>> If a mailing list--which is already a special case of e-mail
>> usage--*ADDS* a reply-to header to an e-mail which matches the from
>> header of the message, when none previously existed, the net effect is
>> nil: res
Derek Martin wrote:
> If a mailing list--which is already a special case of e-mail
> usage--*ADDS* a reply-to header to an e-mail which matches the from
> header of the message, when none previously existed, the net effect is
> nil: respondants will (assuming they even honor reply-to, which is not
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:07:00PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> > That should be fine unless the author has already done that.
>
> RFC 2822 is clear on what does not belong...
This response is particularly thoughtless. I'm well aware of what the
RFC says. I'm also well aw
12 matches
Mail list logo
