[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

>>"Philip" == Philip Brown <phil@bolthole.com> writes:

 Philip> guess what?

 Philip> not everyone uses mutt.

 Philip> not everyone should.

	Yes. Everyone knows that Gnus is the one true mail user agent.

 >> "Reply-to" is meant to send a message back to the person who wrote the
 >> first one, not to someone they wrote the message to.

 Philip> reply-to is meant to direct where you should send "replies to".

	Please quote the RFC you are referring to. I hold that section
 4.4.3 of RFC 822 is fairly clear about what the field is intended to


     4.3.1.  RETURN-PATH

        This field  is  added  by  the  final  transport  system  that
        delivers  the message to its recipient.  The field is intended
        to contain definitive information about the address and  route
        back to the message's originator.

        Note:  The "Reply-To" field is added  by  the  originator  and
               serves  to  direct  replies,  whereas the "Return-Path"
               field is used to identify a path back to  the  origina-


          The standard allows only a subset of the combinations possi-
     ble  with the From, Sender, Reply-To, Resent-From, Resent-Sender,
     and Resent-Reply-To fields.  The limitation is intentional.


        This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
        mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
        uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   In  the  first
        case,  the  author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
        boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
        address.   In  the  second case, an author may wish additional
        persons to be made aware of, or responsible for,  replies.   A
        somewhat  different  use  may be of some help to "text message
        teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic  distribution
        services:   include the address of that service in the "Reply-
        To" field of all messages  submitted  to  the  teleconference;
        then  participants  can  "reply"  to conference submissions to
        guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of  their

        Note:  The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail  transport
               service,  at the time of final deliver.  It is intended
               to identify a path back to the orginator  of  the  mes-
               sage.   The  "Reply-To"  field  is added by the message
               originator and is intended to direct replies.

RFC: 1036              Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages

2.1.1.  From

    The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
    person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. 


2.2.1.  Reply-To

    This line has the same format as "From".  If present, mailed replies
    to the author should be sent to the name given here.  Otherwise,
    replies are mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not
    prevent additional copies from being sent to recipients named by the
    replier, or on "To" or "Cc" lines.)  The full name may be optionally
    given, in parentheses, as in the "From" line.

 Philip> And in the case of the debian mailing lists, you should "reply to" the
 Philip> list.

	Not on the internet Iam used to. Out here, we follow
 standards, see, and there is this thing called rfc 822 ...

 Alimony and bribes will engage a large share of your wealth.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: