On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
reply-to: headers are bad.
Oh, on that I agree.
There are draft RFCs to specify these things better, eg seperating the concept of 'Reply-to' into one policy for list related replies and another for personal, mutt supports these drafts already[1], but there hasnt been much apparent movement in these drafts becoming standards track. (primarily because there are already similar headers defined and RFC standards tracked for NNTP readers/posters).
1. which can be annoying when dealing with mutt users.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fortune:
The soul would have no rainbow had the eyes no tears.
