On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:43 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown <jed at 59A2.org> wrote:
> > Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
> > unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
> > this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.
> Oh, I really like that. The condition there avoids breaking legitimate
> uses of Reply-To, (such as the cairo lists I run, where cairo-commit@
> has no user-generated From:---just a single automated address, but has
> Reply-To: set to the cairo@ list instead so that replies to committed
> patches go to the right place).

I'm not sure I follow (at least not when comparing to the sanitized
headers shown in the online archives).  Could you send me one of these

When mailing lists munge, do they ever just add to that field (RFC-2822
says Reply-To may contain multiple addresses)?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available

Reply via email to