On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:55:13PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > With the caveat that I did not list Mutt by name but that's quibbling. > Point is, as you've experienced yourself, Mutt's behavior is not > consistent when improperly-set Reply-To fields are in play.
I admit I'd forgotten this; for the longest time I had a patch which I wrote to fix this applied to my mutt; Mutt dev being what it is (basically dead) the maintainers didn't have any interest in applying it. I have no use to maintain patches forever so I stopped bothering. > The reason is simple: the program is trying to deal with two conflicting > directives. I don't see any conflict. Reply-to says where to send responses intended for the sender, at the sender's behest; this does not in any way preclude sending additional copies to OTHER recipients. So I think the reason is not so simple, and the behavior is completely brain-dead. But that's just me. > Or you can pick the third option: don't insert or alter Reply-To fields. > If there is no Reply-To field then there is no conflict. If there is no > conflict then any given MUA will behave consistently for its user. Or you can pick the "right" option: make reply-to work sanely in all mail programs... As implemented currently, reply-to is next to useless, and as you say, detrimental... even when used as intended. It should not be thus. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
