On Monday 16 June 2008, Harold Fuchs wrote: >On 16/06/2008 12:35, Gene Heskett wrote: >> On Monday 16 June 2008, Harold Fuchs wrote: >>> 2008/6/16 Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> On Sunday 15 June 2008, Harold Fuchs wrote: >>>>> On 15/06/2008 15:16, Gene Heskett wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday 14 June 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>>>>> i would like to get open office on my computer how do i get it >>>>>> >>>>>> <http:openoffice.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> The download is free, and can be installed on as many machines as you >>>>>> like, or copied and given away. Anyone who wants to charge you for >>>>>> it, you are not on the correct downloading site. >>>>> >>>>> To Gene Heskett: you responded to a poster who is not subscribed. If >>>>> you do not include such a poster's email address *explicitly* in the >>>>> To: or cc: list of your reply the poster will not see your message >>>>> unless, which seems unlikely, s/he is reading this list via a different >>>>> e-mail address or via a News group such as Gmane's. >>>> >>>> Is kmail loosing its mind, or am I. First I can't seem to get it to >>>> remember >>>> that any replies I send to THIS list are supposed to go through gmail, >>>> not verizon. And apparently it also doesn't do me any good to hit the >>>> reply-all >>>> button either. >>>> >>>> Thanks Harold. >>> >>> Gene, >>> >>> I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the mail system makes any difference. >>> A message from a non-subscribed poster (and only such a message) will >>> contain a second "Delivered-To:" header saying "moderator for >>> [email protected]". Some mail readers - Thunderbird is the one I know >>> most about - will let you filter on that header/value and "tag" relevant >>> messages in some way that you can easily see. This makes life easier but >>> in any case I think you have explicitly to include the poster's address >>> for the poster to see your reply. I don't believe Reply All works >>> although, as Larry Gusaas says there has been debate on this topic; it >>> certainly doesn't work in Thunderbird, in Outlook Express or in Gmail's >>> web interface. >> >> This is using pop3 both ways here, regardless of what server I post >> through. I detest these so-called web mail lashups for a number of >> reasons, the inability to turn off html in most of them being #1. >> >> What did you do, in sending me a private message, to cause kmail to send >> this reply to the list rather than back to you? That doesn't seem to be >> the correct response either. >> >> Thanks Harold. > >Gene, all I did was use my usual "reply" (*not* reply-all) to your >message. I just assumed it would go to [email protected] as usual. >However, your question caused me to look at the headers of your message. >I think the "problem" arises from the fact that your message does *not* >have a Reply-To header and therefore, following RFC 822 [1], my mailer >sent my reply to the From address - "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I'm >talking about your message "GmailId11a8fb595c65bfa7" sent Sun, 15 Jun >2008 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT). > >So either your mailer failed to insert the Reply-To header or the list >management software screwed up or my mail system (Googlemail) lost the >Reply-To header.
It wasn't there. I discontinued its use a couple of years ago because it was messing with too many list management software packages mind. >I also note that your message was cc'd to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Was that deliberate on your part or did >your mailer do that automagically? Automagicly. >Note too that *this* message is not going to you personally but to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] even though I followed the same procedure - I just Reply'd to >a message from you to the list. That message does have a Reply-To header. As I have here, and its headed for users@ ANAICT >[1] From RFC 822: >- If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the >addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated >in the "From" field. >- If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, the reply should >be sent to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. > >The headers from your message follow. Note that the text below is >copy/pasted from Googlemail's *web* interface and not from my mailer >(Thunderbird). Therefore I don't think the lack of a Reply-To header is >an artefact of anything at my end: It wasn't. >=========== begin headers ==== >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: by 10.150.144.10 with SMTP id r10cs237754ybd; > Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT) >Received: by 10.90.115.17 with SMTP id n17mr6335045agc.57.1213591820762; > Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT) >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com >[209.85.132.240]) > by mx.google.com with ESMTP id >l31si4764037hsa.2.2008.06.15.21.50.19; > Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT) >Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >designates 209.85.132.240 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.132.240; >Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of >[EMAIL PROTECTED] designates 209.85.132.240 as permitted sender) >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; dkim=pass (test mode) [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d30so2183651and.77 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:19 >-0700 (PDT) >DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; > d=gmail.com; s=gamma; > h=domainkey-signature:received:received:organization:to:subject:date > > :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type > :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; > > bh=ibahjTDHLAp0DwsMrwDCP8kii/QnLK+HuelTUyOKTHU=; > b=k93H0WpWT+gEr+aOsZ0VWocDtUl9D9aUGlORweY4Mc3gK0hFHlY3N+MSgQFEQxAih1 > >Z3EboC41cHAaJK3tOVxuYGy+R2ESFrFShfWvySmy1bDfRBDF138DlN++SkuSGdjLJncW > Bg4bvfD/2a7tqlkmmzNSgWONwzBmqYjiwOaRQ= >DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; > d=gmail.com; s=gamma; > h=organization:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to > > :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding > :content-disposition:message-id:from; > > b=NxX6Vetb391QcM1K22qE0WTu1NAHQnUdhk4haR3/bhiVneWMVG6MZRkK0Dc2nIHsMP > >ehLKtmgN9KnUhw0SmOH8xfrBRY5rAw7w9x2sJFjZR/zNSKqgReE0Cb6TM+qLEBsNcueX > 00R2CRDB8q2HChcCph3LfB6l7NJRc03MZ5H1o= >Received: by 10.101.68.10 with SMTP id v10mr7309823ank.45.1213591819453; > Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:19 -0700 (PDT) >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from coyote.coyote.den ( [151.205.9.220]) > by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm11228895yxg.6.2008.06.15.21.50.18 > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); > Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:18 -0700 (PDT) >Organization: Organization? Not detectable >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [users] [moderated] >Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:50:16 -0400 >User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 >Cc: Harold Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>cc: >=========== end headers ===== And at least 2/3rds of the above was not in the message I sent. Here that is same header as it left here for a comparison: ------------------------ From: Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Organization? very little X-KMail-Identity: 2102292296 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [users] [moderated] Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:35:10 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-KMail-Link-Message: 4095525091 X-KMail-Link-Type: reply X-KMail-Transport: GMail Send MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: RO X-Status: RSC X-KMail-EncryptionState: X-KMail-SignatureState: X-KMail-MDN-Sent: ------------------------------ And that's it. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) It's so beautifully arranged on the plate -- you know someone's fingers have been all over it. -- Julia Child on nouvelle cuisine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
