On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:05:12PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > 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.
I meant to also comment that with list-reply functionality, it's (currently) largely a non-issue since reply-to is rarely set by anyone except for some mailing lists which still think this is a good idea, of which I am currently subscribed to zero. However, as mailing lists adapt to increased usage of DMARC I guess that could become more of a concern; I've already posted to mutt-dev about getting that fixed. Though, again, with proper list-reply functionality, it should still not really a big issue. Though, much as I like Mutt, the reality is I would no longer really recommend new users try it, unless they expressed a strong desire to solve a particular need that Mutt uniquely solves (which these days is a really dwindling use case). It's just not modern enough; and development, while still technically ongoing, may as well be considered dead. However, it does appear that properly configured, Thunderbird will do what's required. I thought I heard that development on that was also dead though... -- 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
