Re: cc oder to - richtig oder falsch oder beides ok ?
2011/3/10 Dirk Griesbach <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> | In April of 2001, the IETF issued af new document, RFC 2822, which
> | obsoletes RFC 822. In this new RFC, the author addresses the Reply-To
> | header field in a few places, but the most relevant to this discussion
> | is the following in section 3.6.2 "Originator fields":
> | When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es)
> | to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.
> | Your list software is not "the author of the message", so it must
> | not set or in any way meddle with the Reply-To header field. That
> | field exists for the author and the author alone. If your list
> | munges it, you are violating the standard.
ah, sehr schön. Das ist doch mal ein Argument.
Gut. Dann mach ich ab jetzt auch Reply to all und wer sich beschwert:
Bekommt das zitiert:
"Getting two copies of the same email
Some people complain that they'll get two copies of the same email.
Since they're on the list, their first copy is the one sent to them by
the list. When the responder hit "reply all", it also put their email
address in the recipient list, so they get a second copy directly.
Fortunately, there's already a technical solution to this. Since all
mail clients put a unique Message-ID header field on their email, a
mail reader has only to compare the Message-ID of a message to
previously-recieved messages. If it's the same, then the second
message is a duplicate and can be safely ignored.
If your mail reader doesn't do this, that's too bad, but it's not an
excuse to violate Internet standards and surprise people with
inconsistent behavior, just to prevent you from having to delete a few
emails. Anyone who gets any spam at all knows how to delete email."
Danke, mehr brauch ich nicht. EoD.