(quick read, search for what interests me....) Which fixes the 822 ambiguity: Min 0 reply-to fields, max 1. So KMail added one reply-to as the message left the client machine, the list software added another as the mail passed through its system, and when it go to Outlook it had 2. Should Outlook handle that a little better? Maybe. Is it Outlook's fault that there are two reply-tos in the first place. Nope. We're back to the argument against reply-to munging. It breaks RFCs.
Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: John Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) some quick notes > > > On Monday 07 October 2002 1:44 pm, you wrote: > > > > Read RFC-822, > > > > i have that one bookmarked, actually. along with various other > mail related > > RFCs. funny that. ;-) > > 822 has been replaced by 2822, as have at least one other mail > RFC "recently" >
