Ken Murchison wrote:
I finally got around to dealing with this. I just committed a patch
which does the following:
- use Followup-To (if exists) instead Newsgroups when constructing Reply-To
- strip any post addresses from Reply-To when feeding the article
upstream (via NNTP or SMTP)
These sou
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
I finally got around to dealing with this. I just committed a patch
which does the following:
- use Followup-To (if exists) instead Newsgroups when constructing
Reply-To
- strip any post addresses from Reply-To when feeding the article
upstream (v
Ken Murchison wrote:
It shouldn't be. I never change the Newsgroups header, so once the
article hits NNTP, it will propagate as usual.
Well that's just dandy!
---
Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Any article which gets posted to Cyrus nntpd will have the post address
added to the Reply-To header, and this address will be present in the
article when it is transferred to the outside news peer.
I thought I raised this conc
Ken Murchison wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I've actually been looking for more info on this type of thing, and here
is what I found:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
I can strip the address before tran
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > If the message is inserted directly into this folder via just lmtp,
> > then the Reply-To (Newsgroups, etc.) header won't be added anyway
>
> True, but if the client replies to more than just the Reply-To, then the
> post address will get exposed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I've actually been looking for more info on this type of thing, and here
is what I found:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
I can strip the address before transferring the article v
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
> I've actually been looking for more info on this type of thing, and here
> is what I found:
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
>
> I can strip the address before transferring the article via NNTP, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Any article which gets posted to Cyrus nntpd will have the post address
added to the Reply-To header, and this address will be present in the
article when it is transferred to the outside news peer.
I thought I raised this conc
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Any article which gets posted to Cyrus nntpd will have the post address
> added to the Reply-To header, and this address will be present in the
> article when it is transferred to the outside news peer.
I thought I raised this concern, but it may have j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I just committed this change to CVS. It seems to work just fine with
Mozilla, Outlook and Pine.
It also gave me the opportunity to cleanup the handling of netnews
specific headers (Path, Xref) and to actually append the post addr
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
> I just committed this change to CVS. It seems to work just fine with
> Mozilla, Outlook and Pine.
>
> It also gave me the opportunity to cleanup the handling of netnews
> specific headers (Path, Xref) and to actually append the post addresses
> to the Re
Ken Murchison wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I *believe* the logic that Larry and I worked out was that there might
already be a Reply-To header (if a message was sent to a person and CC'd
to a newsgroup for instance), so we thought it would be safer to
Ken Murchison wrote:
Thanks for looking this up. I'll change it locally and test it with
Mozilla and Outlook (and possibly Pine).
This would be a welcome change in my opinion because it means the user
won't see a "bogus" To: field entry for imported newsgroups. Granted,
they'll see that addres
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
> I *believe* the logic that Larry and I worked out was that there might
> already be a Reply-To header (if a message was sent to a person and CC'd
> to a newsgroup for instance), so we thought it would be safer to just
> create or add to any existing To he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
I *believe* the logic that Larry and I worked out was that there might
already be a Reply-To header (if a message was sent to a person and CC'd
to a newsgroup for instance), so we thought it would be safer to just
create or add to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why newspostuser results
in the adding of the To header instead of the Reply-To header?
I *believe* the logic that Larry and I worked out was that there might
already be a Reply-To header (if a message was sent to a person and CC
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why newspostuser results
in the adding of the To header instead of the Reply-To header?
--
Amos
---
Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
18 matches
Mail list logo
