On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:44:21PM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > Sheng > > Let's get the VOTE started >
We already did [1], and Sheng kindly opened the INFRA ticket to revert the change to the list configuration [2]. [1] http://markmail.org/message/nxy6lmifqhnstz3a [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5850 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:frank.zh...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:37 PM > > To: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" > > header? > > > > Let's just get the vote start > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM > > > To: Alex Huang > > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" > > > header? > > > > > > In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list > > > server violated the IETF's definition of email. > > > > > > Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC > > > 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields: > > > > > > <quote> > > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it > > > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests > > > that replies be sent. > > > </quote> > > > > > > Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so it > > > have no privilege to add this field to the mail. > > > > > > Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which > > > provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To" Munging > > > Considered Harmful`. > > > > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 > > > [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > > > > > --Sheng
