On 8/17/15, jimmy cho <j...@radixsystems.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for the reply, > > Yes squirrelmail account is sa...@cccxxith.com > <sa...@cccxxith.com> > > logged in as the user sales. the email is from the sender > 3...@gtmmmm.com . The mail header is > > > Return-Path: <3...@gtmmmm.com> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on cccxith.com > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=6.0 tests=SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED > autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 > X-Original-To: sa...@cccxxith.com > Delivered-To: sa...@cccxxith.com > Received: from mail3.sa47.com (mail3.satc7.com []) > by cccxxith.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E6C826C19C4 > for <sa...@cccxxith.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:22:03 +0800 (SGT) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01D0D5C9.5BDB8400" > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 > Subject: Tango: Final Outstanding > Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:10:16 -0000 > Message-ID: <5895f58f1cbcfb4b9798b816644e0a320285c...@exc01.satnet247.com> > In-Reply-To: <5895f58f1cbcfb4b9798b816644e0a32020f4...@exc01.satnet247.com> > X-MS-Has-Attach: yes > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > Thread-Topic: Tango: Final Outstanding > Thread-Index: AdDUC/C+4QueShRdQL+Ib7kuEwoRpg== > References: > <of09125dee.dea5422c-on48257b95.00122404-48257b95.00127...@pokkll.com.sg> > <000001ce7153$98f91cd0$caeb5670$@singnet.com.sg> > <25ea01ce7155$199977d0$4ccc6770$@ewliner.com> > <00ba01ce7157$81d7a590$8586f0b0$@ewliner.com> > <ofe1590139.822b0650-on48257b97.004d946d-48257b97.004dd...@pokkll.com.sg> > <003001ce73a0$55c41b00$014c5100$@ewliner.com> > <B1F64A67DE10644C8CBA4A63E0166F118BAED4D6@uk-site0-ex01> > <002401ce73e8$c70e67a0$552b36e0$@ewliner.com> > <off03f7889.17ee55da-on48257b9b.002036d2-48257b9b.00205...@pokkll.com.sg> > <010001ce7622$85280080$8f780180$@ewliner.com> > <of63a1ff93.30113491-on48257b9b.00242657-48257b9b.00245...@pokkll.com.sg> > <011901ce77b3$255c2450$70146cf0$@ewliner.com> > <of7b7c36ce.f2506ca5-on48257b9d.002257a5-48257b9d.00228...@pokkll.com.sg> > <5895f58f1cbcfb4b9798b816644e0a32020f4...@exc01.satnet247.com> > From: <3...@gtmmmm.com> > To: "Sales" <sa...@cccxxith.com> > Cc: "purchase tanker" <purtan...@pokkll.com.sg>, > <tanke...@pokkll.com.sg>, > "Alk Rt" <alok.ra...@pokkll.com.sg>, > "Chine Kh" <c...@pokkll.com.sg> > Reply-To: <sa...@cccxxith.com> > > > Problem is when reply-all is selected, the sender > > 3...@gtmmmm.com > > is not listed in the To: field
Because there is a Reply-To in the original message. > only the cc addresses. The email was > sent and the sender never got the reply because the user did not spot the > missing 3...@gtmmmm.com address. I agreed the email header is > defective because of the erroneous Reply-To: . But the From: field > entry 3...@gtmmmm.com should be in the To: field in the reply email > compose page. According to who? Can you show the part of the RFC that requires this? I don't believe it's specifically defined, but I think the expectation is that a user will specify a Reply-To precisely because they do not want a reply to go to the From address. FWIW, Thunderbird behaves exactly the same. I think your other webmail client is the non-standard outlier. -- Paul Lesniewski SquirrelMail Team Please support Open Source Software by donating to SquirrelMail! http://squirrelmail.org/donate_paul_lesniewski.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- squirrelmail-users mailing list Posting guidelines: http://squirrelmail.org/postingguidelines List address: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net List archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.mail.squirrelmail.user List info (subscribe/unsubscribe/change options): https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squirrelmail-users
