-Original Message-
From: Jon Stethridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 7:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mailman-Users] From field displayed by MS Outlook
Hi,
I think like so many others I am effected by the from: address being
incorrectly reported in Outlook
At 8:32 PM -0800 2004/01/21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and faulty RFC
interpretation?
Mailman is a volunteer project. Volunteers will work on the
sorts of things that
At 12:00 AM -0500 2004/01/22, Rabinowitz, Ari (Exchange) wrote:
There is no way for the Mailman developers to fix this, since if they
didn't have the Sender address be the list bounce address then all of
Mailman's bounce handling would no longer work, and the author of the
message would get
At 6:52 AM + 2004/01/22, Richard Barrett wrote:
If this list's membership forged a consensus behind a manageable and
relatively minor proposal to change Mailman, which did not compromise
its adherence to RFCs, then maybe there is a way forward to suit most
people.
This still doesn't fix
See below:
- Original Message Follows -
At 02:32 PM 22/01/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product
superior enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and
faulty RFC interpretation?
What is wrong with this idea, is
I should read all mail before sending I suppose. Thanks Ari for your
explanation. It works for me...
- Original Message Follows -
-snip-
Mailman is doing the right thing, by specifying the Sender address
-snip-
There is no way for the Mailman developers to fix this, since if
-snip-
The
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mailman-Users] From field displayed by MS Outlook
Hi,
I think like so many others I am effected by the from: address being
incorrectly reported in Outlook. I am guessing since nothing has been
posted to the list this is still a current problem. I can report
On 22 Jan 2004, at 14:19, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 6:52 AM + 2004/01/22, Richard Barrett wrote:
If this list's membership forged a consensus behind a manageable and
relatively minor proposal to change Mailman, which did not compromise
its adherence to RFCs, then maybe there is a way forward
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 15:39, Richard Barrett wrote:
And I did not say it would. Nor is it necessary to so do. Outlook is
not wrong and nor is Mailman. Its just that some users are confused by
what they see and some mailing list admins are equally confused about
why their users are
At 4:26 PM -0500 2004/01/22, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Who's the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message?
Is Mailman acting as this agent? Arguably not.
I disagree. I believe that this is exactly the role that Mailman
is fulfilling.
One other thing. Mailman also adds an
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 16:48, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 4:26 PM -0500 2004/01/22, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Who's the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message?
Is Mailman acting as this agent? Arguably not.
I disagree. I believe that this is exactly the role that
Hi,
I think like so many others I am effected by the from: address being
incorrectly reported in Outlook. I am guessing since nothing has been
posted to the list this is still a current problem. I can report that the
latest version of Outlook 2003 reports:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Jon Stethridge schrieb:
I think like so many others I am effected by the from: address being
incorrectly reported in Outlook. I am guessing since nothing has been
posted to the list this is still a current problem.
If it is a problem, it's not a problem with Mailman.
I can report that the
]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] From field displayed by MS Outlook
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:09:02 +0100
snip
If it is a problem, it's not a problem with Mailman.
snip
Ugly - but Outlook. :)
snip
Don't use Outlook if you don't like the way it mangles From: and
Sender: together.
-tth
]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] From field displayed by MS Outlook
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:09:02 +0100
snip
If it is a problem, it's not a problem with Mailman.
snip
Ugly - but Outlook. :)
snip
Don't use Outlook if you don't like the way it mangles From: and
Sender: together
I could find nothing in the archive about open bug reports on outlook
and displaying addresses...
Why would stupid behavior in Outlook be considered a mailman bug?
If people want to use Microsoft's Virus Propagation Wizard to mangle
their mail, that should be their problem.
mjb.
Today's
At 5:56 PM -0600 2004/01/21, Linda Pahdoco wrote:
So I'm supposed to tell my client Just tell the hundreds of corporate
people who belong to your mailing list to not use outlook?
We're looking for a real life answer, not a perfect world one.
If Outlook is inappropriately munging the Sender:
Hi Brad,
At 10:33 AM 22/01/04, you wrote:
At 5:56 PM -0600 2004/01/21, Linda Pahdoco wrote:
So I'm supposed to tell my client Just tell the hundreds of corporate
people who belong to your mailing list to not use outlook?
We're looking for a real life answer, not a perfect world one.
At 11:37 AM +1000 2004/01/22, Brendan Pratt wrote:
Perhaps someone out there could put together a list of very specific
bugs with Microsoft lookOut and lookOut Express, in a bug report
format, and then place it online somewhere so that we could all
direct our clients to. This way the client
--On Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:09 PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The link to file a bug report is here:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103atid=100103
The above should be one line.
I could find nothing in the archive about open bug reports on outlook
and displaying addresses...
--On Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:56 PM -0600 Linda Pahdoco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If only life were that easy.
So I'm supposed to tell my client Just tell the hundreds of corporate
people who belong to your mailing list to not use outlook?
We're looking for a real life answer, not a perfect
At 02:32 PM 22/01/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and faulty RFC
interpretation?
What is wrong with this idea, is that it means Mailman is going against the
RFC that it
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Brendan Pratt
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:49 PM
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and faulty RFC
interpretation?
Mailman is doing
On 22 Jan 2004, at 05:00, Rabinowitz, Ari (Exchange) wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Brendan Pratt
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:49 PM
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor
24 matches
Mail list logo
