On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:15:29 -0400 Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JCL> Ergo, if a given list is configured to do reply-To munging and JCL> it receives a message with Reply-To set, then it makes sense to JCL> _ADD_ the list's address to the Reply-To: header if present, JCL> rather than replacing it. > VM/XEmacs does the right thing too, with both Reply-To: that > contains multiple addresses, and multiple Reply-To: headers in the > original message. If I'm reading it correctly, multiple Reply-To headers violates RFC 2822. The fact that VM supports it is fine, but that doesn't mean Mailman should emit it. Be generous in what your accept and conservative and what you emit. > I'll rework the munging code for the next alpha to augment the > header instead of replacing it. It would be easier to simply add > a new Reply-To: header. Can you guys check to see if multiple > Reply-To: headers are honored too? Note: Need to make sure you do duplicate collapsing of the Reply-To header in case the poster has already set Reply-To to the list in effort to nix CC: dupes. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
