And further to my own comment - this RFC is dated April 2001. I'm using Outlook 2000. It can't follow standards that weren't set when it was created. :-)
Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: (clug-talk) some quick notes > > > (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 822 has been replaced by 2822, as have at least one other mail 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" > > > >
