http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
This supports Alex's point for a proper method for dealing with undesirable duplicates lies with the receiver. This is in part what Message-ID is for, which RFC 2822 specifically says that these "duplicates" are not new instances of that message. They are in effect a single message. However, the duplicates wouldn't happen if the list used the List-Post header field, and if the mail client honors it. All Omni Admin emails contain this: List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> So Omni is off the hook, if I'm reading the RFC's correctly. And I will argue the flaw is with Apple Mail. It's not honoring List-Post at all, not with Reply or Reply-All. It's illogical behavior to default to replying to individuals, let alone multiple individuals, for list serves. It's any wonder why there is a Reply-To hack, which RFC 2822 suggests is improper because it is author domain. So actually reply-to is off limits for listserves. And Reply-to is used for the *suggested* address for replies. There's no suggestions in any RFC that a replier should not use both From: and Reply-To:, merely that if one is to be used, Reply-To is suggested. Chris Murphy On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Alex Satrapa wrote: > On 10/03/2011, at 15:47 , Chris Murphy wrote: > >> But alas there is only one list member who is particularly bent out of shape >> about it. > > I've had duplicate deletion on my mail server for a long time :\ > > Works most of the time, based on the Message-ID and "references" headers > which mailman preserves. > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
