Sounds to me like the broken product (or misconfigured) is the mailling-list software. If the RFC says no more than one Reply-To fields, then it shouldn't be adding more, it should be replacing, or preferably appending to, the existing field. This won't fix the annoying behaviour of outlook, but that isn't really a bug, it just doesn't implement a non-standard feature that many people like, and that lot's of other mail clients implement.
Kevin Anderson a �crit: >>designed the product. So yes, that's a shortcoming of the product. But >>you'll notice that the problem was actually solved without recoding >>Outlook - you just had to change a setting on your end, instead of > > everyone > >>else on the list changing email clients. > > > > I'd actually argue that this is a BAD thing. > > If something is broken, it should be fixed where the problem originally > lies. The solution should not be to just live with the rest of the mail > list using poorly configured products. That would be like saying that the > easiest solution to a mail virus would be to just have bigger pipes so we > could handle the traffic. > > The real issue is that Outlook CAN'T be fixed. And that is the problem. > > Aaron wrote the code to fix it, but Microsoft would rather have OTHER > (competing) Products bend to fit the Microsoft way. And that's what has now > happened. And because they have a monopoly (quoting..."instead of everyone > else on the list") we all have to just accept that, and like it. That ends > up with this whole argument. Instead of seeing that Microsoft wrote a > flawed product, that needs to be fixed, the simplest solution is for the > correctly functioning product, Kmail ;in this instance; to either spend > their time changing a product that isn't broken to accomodate a flaw in a > product that is broken, OR, (on a corporate level), to simply mandate > Outlook across the board, so that interoperability doesn't matter. > > That is the problem. And in this case, it isn't even a serious problem. > Kev.
