On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 04:54:08 +0100 Brian Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. This is getting rather far beyond the scope of this mailing list. However, I have just now reviewed Section 3.6.3 of RFC2822 and it appears that the behaviour of Reply-All "is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document." > . Your mail client has decided to abandon the standard in favour of > what it thinks is more helpful. See above. > > 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. Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of mis-directed "private mail" that was intended to be posted to the mailing list. (Been there, done that. The Scribus list, as one example, used to be configured that way and it caused a great deal of confusion for new participants on the mailing list.) It appears that the behaviour of Reply-All is in a fuzzy undefined area, and the exact action taken is determined by the chap who wrote the mail client. It appears that, in the context of this mailing list, the behaviour of the Sylpheed mail client is more useful than Seamonkey's appears to be. Feel free to disagree, but again this is beyond the scope of this mailing list. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
