Hi, >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in Kai> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having it >> munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken* >> behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing >> because some mailers are broken out there? Kai> No such thing. It is pretty clear to me (after the discussion on Kai> DRUMS) that there currently is no "perfectly standard" Reply-To: Kai> processing; the header is used in too many incompatible ways. Umm, can it be that there is no "perfectly standard" Reply-To: processing simply because too many lists stomped right over the RFC 822's first two examples of reply-to usage (namely, for the author to send mail elsewhare)? I'll re-read the RFC's in question (because of my disk crash, I have lost my mirror), but I have yet to read anything to convince me to break reply-to's by munging them. Kai> There are _no_ universally accepted, useful conventions for Kai> Reply-To:. Sad but true. 822 was too imprecise in it's Kai> definition, plus current mailing lists were unknown back then. From the quote on this mailing list, I think 822 was precise enough; but I am no expert. Kai> If you can't get your mailer to reply to From: when you want to, Kai> complain to it's programmer - it's broken. I thought that is the author sets reply-to, then that should be used for replies, and not from. I can reply to from: unless there is a reply-to, when that takes precedence. If people munge reply-to, I'll never knoe, will I? Kai> (As to "From: is broken", Reply-To: was _never_ meant to fix Kai> that. From: _should_ be settable by the mail sender - read 822 if Kai> you don't believe me. Mailers (or system setups) that don't allow Kai> you to do that are _clearly_ broken. From: is not, and never has Kai> been, meant for any sort of authentication info.) Correct, but if the author chooses to use reply-to, in accordance with rfc 822, it should be respected. (ours not to question the wisdom of the author) >> electronic mail standards and convention, is none of our >> business. We *shoul* *not* break it. Kai> Sorry. No can do. You will always break it for someone. I have no qualms about breaking it for people who are not coforming to standards. >> I think people should get decent mail user agents. Kai> There don't seem to be many that match your definition of Kai> "decent". (Incidentally, that's part of why I'm still thinking Kai> about writing my own.) But there are some. manoj -- The magician is seated in his high chair and looks upon the world with favor. He is at the height of his powers. If he closes his eyes, he causes the world to disappear. If he opens his eyes, he causes the world to come back. If there is harmony within him, the world is harmonious. If rage shatters his inner harmony, the unity of the world is shattered. If desire arises within him, he utters the magic syllables that causes the desired object to appear. His wishes, his thoughts, his gestures, his noises command the universe. Selma Fraiberg, _The Magic Years_, pg. 107 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .