On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:54:20 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> And I'm glad I did because that turned up a bug in the patch, (using
> == instead of != for the return value of strcasestr resulted in *all*
> messages with a Reply-To header being considered as munged).
Yikes, I've been using this thing for
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:54:20 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> And I'm glad I did because that turned up a bug in the patch, (using
> == instead of != for the return value of strcasestr resulted in *all*
> messages with a Reply-To header being considered as munged).
Yikes, I've been using this thing for
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:19:36 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> Some mailing lists engage in the evil practice of changing the Reply-To
> header so that replies from all mailers go to the list by default, at
> the expense of not responding to the person who actually sent the
> message. When this is detect
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:19:36 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> Some mailing lists engage in the evil practice of changing the Reply-To
> header so that replies from all mailers go to the list by default, at
> the expense of not responding to the person who actually sent the
> message. When this is detect
Some mailing lists engage in the evil practice of changing the Reply-To
header so that replies from all mailers go to the list by default, at
the expense of not responding to the person who actually sent the
message. When this is detected, we reply to `From' and remove the
duplicate response to th
Some mailing lists engage in the evil practice of changing the Reply-To
header so that replies from all mailers go to the list by default, at
the expense of not responding to the person who actually sent the
message. When this is detected, we reply to `From' and remove the
duplicate response to th
