Re: Proposal: new alternatives links
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 07:03:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:18:20AM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> > >>>> "AB" == Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> > > Since my MUA doesn't respect Mail-Copies-To:, too, could you please point
> > > me to the RFC where this header is defined so that I can blame the people
> > > who wrote my MUA?
> >
> > Mail-Copies-To isn't yet in RFC like signature separator "-- ". See :
> >
> > http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
>
> I think he was trying to tell me that since it isn't in an RFC (yet), I
> should fuck off with my requests to not be spammed.
No, he is trying to point out that every mail client supports Reply-To
already.
If you set Reply-To, like I have, to the destination where you'd like
mail to be sent you have a greater chance of people respecting your
preference.
Even though you set Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Copies-To my MUA is
configured to ignore them (broken fields that they are). It does
follow Reply-To though.
Plus, only *you* have to set Reply-To whereas with your approach people
have to remember what you do or don't like. Setting Reply-To will be
simpler and reduce your frustration level.
Anand
Reply to: