Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On 03-Jan-01, 22:53 (CST), John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 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-
Uh, there have been headers added since 822.
> > Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header?
> It would be in your case:
> Reply-to: email@example.com
> would avoid the unnecessary CCs, which is what I assume you want to do.
Wrong. This would break my MUA so that "reply" no longer sends mail back
to the originator, as it is supposed to do.
> The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the overflows in
> pine....mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
Extremely unlikely, as it originated from elm.
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)