Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
> > There is nothing about honoring X headers at all.
> I didn't say there was. Does "Mail-Copies-To:" begin with an X?
RFC 822 this time:
and Mail-Copies-To: fails to rear it's ugly head, so really should be
under user-defined fields, which are supposed to be X-
Individual users of network mail are free to define and
use additional header fields. Such fields must have names
which are not already used in the current specification or in
any definitions of extension-fields, and the overall syntax of
these user-defined-fields must conform to this specification's
rules for delimiting and folding fields. Due to the
extension-field publishing process, the name of a user-
defined-field may be pre-empted
Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in the
names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined
fields with a protected set of names.
> > In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers,
> > which I might note you didn't include in your message.
> Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header?
It would be in your case:
would avoid the unnecessary CCs, which is what I assume you want to do.
> > Basically, you're on the wrong side of RFC 1855 on this issue and all the
> > bitching in the world isn't going to change it. If I'm wrong, prove it:
> > I've provided my proof in the form of RFC 1855.
> Yes, you obviously attached quite a bit of RFC reading material to your
Would you have preferred me to attach the entirety of 3.1, 3.1.1 and
3.1.2? Six screensful of information in lynx? Any way you slice it, it's
that much more than you provided...
How about a URL....
> Now, let's examine the headers of YOUR message...
> From: John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
Actually, that's on your side--the To header left here empty, since it had
To: Branden Robinson <email@example.com>
and I simply removed it (cut) as per your wishes... Had you properly set
a Reply-to: header, none of this would've happened.
> Well, that's clever. Are you messages so important that you (or your MUA)
> feels they should be read twice? (Fortunately, I think either an RFC or
> the mailing list software squelches the duplicate.)
> Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Oh well, at least the clue ratio of your MUA is homologous to your own,
> thus preserving notions of symmetry in the universe.
The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in
pine....mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a