At 20:14 08/08/2007 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:03:14 -0400
James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have tried that and it does not include the OP's address, as indicated
> with this message, where I used reply all.
> I use Seamonkey for my email.
I suspect that may be a bug in the way that Seamonkey interprets
email headers.
For example, the relevant headers in your message are as follows:
From: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
"Reply All" should reply to both the From: and the Reply-To:
addresses, as well
as any CC: addresses. Simply stated, "All" means (or should mean) every email
address in the headers with the exception of the To: address.
It may be worth your while to file a bug report against Seamonkey. I assume
Mozilla operates a bugzilla-type of webpage somewhere, though I have never
actually gone looking for it.
I fancy that you are wrong here. The non-standard behaviour - or
"bug", if you prefer - is in the way your mail client (Sylpheed?) is
working, not the other one.
RFC 2822 says 'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates
the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that
replies be sent". So anyone who puts a different Reply-To address in
his messages is asking that nothing be returned to his From address:
the Reply-To address should be used instead. This means that
standards-conforming mail clients should (and do) ignore the From
address and include the Reply-To address when assembling the "Reply
All" list of addresses.
The problem emerges when mailing list processors, as here, insert an
additional Reply-To: header addressing the list. No matter how
desirable that may seem, it offends against the standard (which makes
clear that the Reply-To: header should show the *author's* choice -
not the lists's), and renders standards-conforming clients incapable
of including the original sender in the "Reply All" address list
. Your mail client has decided to abandon the standard in favour of
what it thinks is more helpful.
The solution is for mailing list processors to follow the standard
and avoid adding their own Reply-To: headers, no matter how tempting
this practice might seem.
Brian Barker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
