Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > > 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:
> > Reply-to: email@example.com
> no, that would make it difficult for people to reply privately to him.
> Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use.
Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a
registry that RFC822 implies is in the hands of SRI International is
(jpalme is as much of a member as one can be of the IETF RFC822 WG)
which says that a "Followup-To:" header is from RFC 1036, but RFC 1036 is
for USENET messages, not email. The only thing I can think of is that
somebody liked the usenet idea of the followup-to: and just appended a
mail on it. Just because somebody breaks the standards does NOT mean that
> > The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in
> > pine....
> incorrect, again. the difference between mutt and pine is that mutt is
> a decent piece of free software that works and follows the relevant
> standards, while pine is a broken piece of non-free shit which doesn't.
Horsefeathers! The Mail-followup-to: header is NOT a part of the relevant
> > mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
> since the source-code of both programs is readily available it should be
> easy enough to check this allegation.
> craig sanders
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a