It was thus said that the Great Joshua Juran once stated:
> On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Denny wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:51 -0700, Joshua Juran wrote:
> >>Why the hell can't I tell iTunes or my iPod to finish the
> >>current track and then pause?
> >
> >Are you saying you can't play a single track by itself on an iPod?
>
> Basically, yes -- you can't. Or with iTunes.
>
> ># include std_reply_to_list_not_enabled_hate
>
> Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful, and blame your mail user agent
> for not letting you reply-to-list by default.
Reply-To Munging is Considered Ambiguous:
http://boston.conman.org/2000/02/03
Section 4.4.3 of RFC-822 seems to allow it, but for those of you who
consider RFC-822 a bit outdated, I did try checking up on RFC-2822, and
while I didn't find anything equivilent to RFC-822 sect. 4.4.3, I did
however, notice the slight redefinition of the "Reply-To" header. In
RFC-822, it was defined as:
"Reply-To" ":" 1#address
whereas in RFC-2822, it's defined as:
"Reply-To:" address-list CRLF
address-list = (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-list
So it looks like you can now add mutiple recipients to the "Reply-To"
field, which should satisfy all concerns.
Maybe.
-spc (So not a software hate, but a loose specification hate ... )
