On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > > > In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: > > > > headers, > > > > which I might note you didn't include in your message. > > > > > > Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header? > > > > It would be in your case: > > > > Reply-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > no, that would make it difficult for people to reply privately to him. > > Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use.
Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a registry that RFC822 implies is in the hands of SRI International is http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/mail-headers/ (jpalme is as much of a member as one can be of the IETF RFC822 WG) which says that a "Followup-To:" header is from RFC 1036, but RFC 1036 is for USENET messages, not email. The only thing I can think of is that somebody liked the usenet idea of the followup-to: and just appended a mail on it. Just because somebody breaks the standards does NOT mean that everybody should. > > The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in > > pine.... > > incorrect, again. the difference between mutt and pine is that mutt is > a decent piece of free software that works and follows the relevant > standards, while pine is a broken piece of non-free shit which doesn't. Horsefeathers! The Mail-followup-to: header is NOT a part of the relevant standards! > > mutt allegedly shares code with pine... > > since the source-code of both programs is readily available it should be > easy enough to check this allegation. > > > craig > > -- > craig sanders > > > -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]