On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:47:54PM -0700, John W Baxter wrote:
> At 0:56 -0400 10/20/2001, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >If multiple headers are not supported, then I submit that we should
> >assume that a multi address Reply-to may well be a bug in the spec;
> >other address headers may appear multip
At 22:15 -0700 10/19/2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>BTW: Have you checked Mutt's behaviour yet? Could/would someone
>check Outlook's behaviour?
Eudora 5.1 beta for Mac OS X (wherein I am at the moment) honors multiple
address Reply-To: headers. It's highly likely that Eudora has done so from
the be
At 0:56 -0400 10/20/2001, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>If multiple headers are not supported, then I submit that we should
>assume that a multi address Reply-to may well be a bug in the spec;
>other address headers may appear multiple times, may they not?
No more a bug than the legal multi-address Fro
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> I suspect the bullet lists I've been posting recently
JCL> could/would do it if touched up a bit. Sure, I'll do it.
Great! They should be augmented with the exact variable names and
settings to accomplish the goal. Most lik
On 10/19/01 10:44 PM, "Barry A. Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> their lists to behave. I guess I'm advocating a typical politician's
> exit here (some might call it wimping out ;).
If the RFCs allow for flexibility, I'm all for it.
___
Mailman
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:44:56 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are 6 choices:
Yup.
> What would also be useful, though is a set of guidelines that lay
> out the issues and help a list admin decide which settings are
> most appropriate for their list. Is anybody willing t
It seems to me that there are good arguments for a number of different
Reply-To: policies, and that list administrators are going to have to
make their own choice based on their membership and the way they want
their lists to behave. I guess I'm advocating a typical politician's
exit here (some
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:57 -0400
Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If multiple headers are not supported, then I submit that we
> should assume that a multi address Reply-to may well be a bug in
> the spec
Nahh. Its quite clear, and further, it also makes sense.
> other address he
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:30:30 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/01 8:50 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree, except that as a moderator who regularly moves threads
>> about, having the abilty to coerce, or minimally force initiation
>> of the thread
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:37:40PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > 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
> 282
On 10/19/01 8:50 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, except that as a moderator who regularly moves threads
> about, having the abilty to coerce, or minimally force initiation of
> the thread move as a Good and Useful Thing.
Fair 'nuff. Stylistic differences, neither is righ
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:31:26 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/01 4:04 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By doing reply-to extension we're changing practice as follows:
>> -- Posters can _add_ to a posts disposition list via Reply-To.
>> -- Posters can
On 10/19/01 4:04 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> By doing reply-to extension we're changing practice as follows:
>
> -- Posters can _add_ to a posts disposition list via Reply-To.
> -- Posters can attempt to move threads to a different forum.
Which, IMHO, should be done via
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chuq, I totally agree. I had to "solve" a problem on one of my
> lists that ended up being a fairly prolific poster had his
> "Reply-to" set to his own address. The list was set so that
> replies went to the list, but a
Chuq,
I totally agree. I had to "solve" a problem on one of my lists that ended up being a
fairly prolific poster had his "Reply-to" set to his own address. The list was set so
that replies went to the list, but any reply to his messages on the list did not, due
to
his "reply-to" being set.
I
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:32:44 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/01 3:21 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Note: This does expose an abuse vector:
>>
>> I don't like Bubba.
>>
>> I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba.
> Aka the "set y
On 10/19/01 3:21 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note: This does expose an abuse vector:
>
> I don't like Bubba.
>
> I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba.
Aka the "set your followup to /dev/null" on usenet hack.
I'm of the opinion, and I don't expect to be
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:44:29 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Field Min number Max number Notes reply-to 0 1
Thanks.
> Are you suggesting that we collapse Reply-To: even if we don't add
> one ourselves?
No. I specifically think we should collapse duplicate list
address
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> If I'm reading it correctly, multiple Reply-To headers
JCL> violates RFC 2822. The fact that VM supports it is fine, but
JCL> that doesn't mean Mailman should emit it.
You're right of course, see section 3.6:
Field
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 ad
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> Ergo, if a given list is configured to do reply-To munging
JCL> and it receives a message with Reply-To set, then it makes
JCL> sense to _ADD_ the list's address to the Reply-To: header if
JCL> present, rather than repl
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:21:55 -0400
Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:48:29PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> BTW: Do Mutt et al correctly handle multi-address Reply-To?
> Unknown. I'll have to try it.
FWVLIW nmh/exmh do The Right Thing. Pine didn't seem to.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:48:29PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > Assuming that mailers correctly handle such a Reply-to.
>
> True. If we insert the list address at the head of the reply-to
> list then broken MUAs would seem unlikely to change their behaviour
> (or so quick testing here with a c
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:39:10 -0400
Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:34:05PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> I've been reading RFC 2822 on the subject of Reply-To and noticed
>> that the content of Reply-To is a list. ie you can have more
>> than one address
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:34:05PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> I've been reading RFC 2822 on the subject of Reply-To and noticed
> that the content of Reply-To is a list. ie you can have more than
> one address listed under a Reply-To:
>
> reply-to = "Reply-To:" address-list CRLF
> address-
25 matches
Mail list logo
