It went to a folder that I forgot to check,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:13 PM > To: 'Chip Childers' > Cc: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang; Frank Zhang; cloudstack- > d...@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" > header? > > My bad I must have missed it > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:04 PM > > To: Animesh Chaturvedi > > Cc: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang; Frank Zhang; cloudstack- > > d...@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" > > header? > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:44:21PM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > Sheng > > > > > > Let's get the VOTE started > > > > > > > We already did [1], and Sheng kindly opened the INFRA ticket to revert > > the change to the list configuration [2]. > > > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/nxy6lmifqhnstz3a > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5850 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:frank.zh...@citrix.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:37 PM > > > > To: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang > > > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex > > > > Karasulu > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip > > > > "Reply-to" > > > > header? > > > > > > > > Let's just get the vote start > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM > > > > > To: Alex Huang > > > > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex > > > > > Karasulu > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip > > > > > "Reply-to" > > > > > header? > > > > > > > > > > In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing > > > > > list server violated the IETF's definition of email. > > > > > > > > > > Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which > > > > > obsoletes RFC > > > > > 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields: > > > > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it > > > > > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message > > > > > suggests > > > > > that replies be sent. > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so > > > > > it have no privilege to add this field to the mail. > > > > > > > > > > Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip > > > > > Rosenthal(which provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled > `"Reply-To" > > > > > Munging Considered Harmful`. > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 > > > > > [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > > > > > > > > > --Sheng
