Reformatted excerpts from Israel Herraiz's message of 2009-09-07: > Umm. Yes, you are right. It fails because there is no list > address. Let me figure out another solution for this, I will send > another patch to the list.
We need to figure out what the right behavior should be when replying to a message that you know is a list message, but where you don't know the list address. If there's a reliable way of extracting the list address from another header (From?), we can use that, but I suspect there isn't. If there isn't a reliable wa, then maybe the original behavior is fine (don't treat it specially at all). -- William <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk
