On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200 > Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > > > Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > > > > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > > > > > > > > > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't > > > > > handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others and ignore > > > > > good > > > > > practices because you can't handle your mail. > > > > > > > > You mean ignoring the Reply-To header is "good practice"? > > > > > > It's not being ignored, as you can see by the occurrence of the mailing > > > list in CC. > > > > From RFC 5322: > > > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es) to > > which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. In the > > absence of the "Reply-To:" field, replies SHOULD by default be sent to > > the mailbox(es) specified in the "From:" field unless otherwise > > specified by the person composing the reply. > > > > In other words, you sent it to me, while I requested you to send it to > > the list. > > 'Suggests'. But if you insist, file a bug and stop bothering me. I'm > not maintaining nor developing any mail client.
Claws mail definitely allows proper replies; just grep for X-Mailer header containing "Claws Mail" in this list and see how replies are made. It looks like that problem is in how client is configured. That's why we are borthering you :) Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpj6frn0Kxw9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
