-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 07 October 2002 01:15, Ian Bruseker wrote: > > what about the case where there is an actual need for a Reply-to: > > header? > > Can you give an example?
you gave a couple of them in your email ... Reply-to is there for legitimate reasons... > The most obvious example I can think of is when > you send from one email address, but expect the reply to go to a different > address. For example, if you sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED], but > wanted replies to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or whatever, I just made that > up), then I can understand setting it. But you aren't. Both your actual > address and your reply-to are the same thing. yes, and i was asking how outlook (and others) can excuse their behaviour given that sometimes a Reply-to is indeed needed. > Another example would be if > you want replies to go to multiple parties (say to your secretary and your > accountant as well as you), but again, that's not the case. So why set it? in my case, there is no real reason to do so. but there are cases when it is the right thing to do, in which case outlook would mess things up. > > i'd > > posit that outlook (among others) is indeed broken here. > > Well, I could say something, but that would go against the earlier > discussion of playing nice with the competition. :-) heh... i was waiting for that ;-) there are deffinitely effective and respectable ways to poke at the competition w/out screwing with their names. like actually examining their products ;-) > > especially since > > other mailers manage to get it right. > > The problem is it's not a matter of "getting it right". from the perspective of the user, it sure is... > Read RFC-822, i have that one bookmarked, actually. along with various other mail related RFCs. funny that. ;-) (those who know me will understand...) > section 4.4.4 (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc822.txt) The third point > states: > > If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should > go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to > the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. > > It doesn't say what to do if more than one reply-to header exists. It does > however (through examples) show that the reply-to header can contain more > than one email address. It's not a big leap to assume that if there is > more than one reply-to field, then they should all be concatenated > together. I can see why Microsoft made this design decision. It was their > call to make since the RFC is ambiguous on the subject. and then if they tested with people actively engaged on mailing lists, they'd discover that this is not what users want/expect and that they could provide better default reply-to behaviour for mailing lists w/out breaking the RFC. it isn't very hard. here's some code from kmail that accomplishes this: if (replyToList && parent() && parent()->isMailingList()) { // Reply to mailing-list posting address toStr = parent()->mailingListPostAddress(); } else if (replyToList && headerField("List-Post").find("mailto:";, 0, false) != -1 ) { as you can see, it checks to see if the folder contains a maling list, then if the user asked to post to the list (by pressing l (lower-case L) or selecting it from a menu) ... not hard to do and it works well. > > you could even fix it if you had the source. <grin> > > Ya, I'm not going there. ;-) heh... - -- Aaron J. Seigo GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9oeQ11rcusafx20MRAoJHAJ9xX1JONH4GtTCZUeKd1vbgUNIvEgCfWB/y Rm7UsZovv4uR1hAl5HwCq/E= =vM6e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
