> "Correct" to me is what is defined as a standard in RFCs. Unless I'm blind > or dumb (or both), I can't see that "Mail-Reply-To:" is standardized in any > RFC. > > If I should be wrong, please point me to the relevant RFC.
Plenty of things on the internet happen without RFCs. Generally before such a thing becomes an RFC. > Why do you ignore the fact that the Roundcube user doesn't have any > influence on the "Mail-Reply-To:" header? He can just add any address to the > "Reply-To:" header, AFAICS. I assume you're using roundcube to reply to this email? I dont see a Mail-Reply-To: in there. So i assume that means roundcube isnt the one adding it. Or are you saying it is? It's also not the mailinglist software, or else id have seen it as well. So something else is adding it then? The most likely would be his own email client right? > So the user's intention obviously is to get a reply a) to his personal > address, AND b) to the list. Please tell me how he can realize that, given > that Roundcube (and probably Thunderbird and others as well) is ignoring > this intention. How is roundcube supposed to know the intention? It cant read minds. Something is adding a mail-reply-to header, formulating an intention to roundcube. >> The proper thing to do is to see what is setting the mail-reply-to in the >> first place. > > Geez... As being said, even the Roundcube sender can't influence this But why are you saying roundcube is the one adding it? I dont see it in your replies. >> See http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html > > I've seen that already, Alec posted it a while ago in the dev list as well. > I replied to it, but with no response. > > And this apparently personal web page does supersede RFC standards...? > Probably I should create such a page as well, we'll see if it will win > against the IETF some day. Here is the difference between Alec and myself, and you :) We know who Mr Bernstein is. He is not a random dude from the internet. If you would just calm down, maybe we can get back to solving the issue. Im still trying to find out whats adding the Mail-Reply-To. Are you saying it's roundcube? There are only 2 solutions to this issue. 1) roundcube drops all support for mail-reply-to 2) roundcube supports mail-reply-to, and is thus doing the right thing. I personally dont care which one RC decides to do. But for this specific case, it would be interesting to find out where the mail-reply-to is being added, because that is forcing the intention. Cor _______________________________________________ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
