Re: Header fields and followup address

[Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com>]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> * MJ Ray:
> 
>> [I am not subscribed to curiosa which this is now crossposted to -
>> please cc me on replies only there.]
>>
>> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>>> * Ben Finney: [...]
>>> > It's essentially obsolete, at least for the purpose of mailing lists,
>>> > since RFC 2369 fields that allow the “reply to list” function are
>>> > deployed in essentially every mailing list manager. Let's agitate to
>>> > fix the “reply to list” functionality [...]
>>>
>>> The RFC 2369 headers don't work with cross-posting.  Mail-Followup-To
>>> does.
>>
>> Mail-Followup-To doesn't work with *any* posting because it's so
>> non-standard and different clients handle it differently.
> 
> Uhm, it's just Google Mail that does things in a substantially
> differeny way.  Funny how their users think that it's the only correct
> behavior.
> 
> I've never understood why we, as Debian, can't agree on the exact
> M-F-T semantics and implement them 100% consistently across our
> MUAs. *sigh*

Because MUAs behaviour shouldn't depend on the distro you are using.

-- 

  Felipe Sateler