On Tuesday 11 July 2006 21:19, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 'k, isn't the Reply-To header part of an RFC somewhere? Or is it really
> an optional thing for an MUA to follow?
Well I didn't even seen the reply-to in the email when it came across. So that
may be one problem. But just as a note I found
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'k, isn't the Reply-To header part of an RFC somewhere? Or is it really an
> optional thing for an MUA to follow?
The relevant RFC would be 2822.
If mailers have started ignoring reply-to it would be *because* of lists that
set it. In the presen
'k, isn't the Reply-To header part of an RFC somewhere? Or is it really
an optional thing for an MUA to follow?
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 18:20, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
checking ot make sure it works and gives the right answer ...
Kmail ignores i
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 18:20, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> checking ot make sure it works and gives the right answer ...
Kmail ignores it
>
>
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROT
checking ot make sure it works and gives the right answer ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
--
