Am 15.01.2013 21:06, schrieb Cor Bosman: > Once mail-reply-to is set, the correct action is to use it as the primary > recipient of the reply.
"Correct" to me is what is defined as a standard in RFCs. Unless I'm blind or dumb (or both), I can't see that "Mail-Reply-To:" is standardized in any RFC. If I should be wrong, please point me to the relevant RFC. > So roundcube is doing the right thing by replying > to a mail-reply-to header IF it's set in the email. Why do you ignore the fact that the Roundcube user doesn't have any influence on the "Mail-Reply-To:" header? He can just add any address to the "Reply-To:" header, AFAICS. So the user's intention obviously is to get a reply a) to his personal address, AND b) to the list. Please tell me how he can realize that, given that Roundcube (and probably Thunderbird and others as well) is ignoring this intention. And THAT's a fact that can't be ignored. > The proper thing to do is to see what is setting the mail-reply-to in the > first place. Geez... As being said, even the Roundcube sender can't influence this header, nor can't the recipient see it at all (unless looking at the mail source). Is this really what you are expecting from a standard MUA user (notwithstanding that he wouldn't even understand the implications, even if he would be looking at the source)??? Can we get back to real and simple life, please...? And this means: I reply to a mailing list message, and the reply should go (at least) to the list. Period. > See http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html I've seen that already, Alec posted it a while ago in the dev list as well. I replied to it, but with no response. And this apparently personal web page does supersede RFC standards...? Probably I should create such a page as well, we'll see if it will win against the IETF some day. OMG. Furthermore - and if I understand everything correctly - "Mail-Reply-To:" is meant to fix issues with mailing lists which do this so-called reply-to munging. But the Roundcube lists are apparently not doing any reply-to munging, otherwise the relevant message wouldn't have a "Reply-To:" header like this: ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Reply-To: [email protected], > Roundcube Users mailing list <[email protected]> ------------------------------------------------------------------ So where's the beef to have a (incorrect and incomplete) "Mail-Reply-To:" header, when there is already a (complete and correct) "Reply-To:" header? I'm really wondering if you have looked at the details of my post and the message attached. Cheers, -- Michael Heydekamp Co-Admin freexp.de Düsseldorf/Germany _______________________________________________ Roundcube Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
