On Monday 2009 January 05 17:27:44 Ken Teague wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > See, I just think you guys should stop using bad clients. ;) Kmail > > replies to the list (and only to the list) by default. (Which, actually, > > appears to be a violation on the relevant standards. :P) > > Is Kmail available for Win32? I'm at work on my laptop and don't have > the luxury of Linux all day.
I don't really know. I haven't been following KDE development since they decided to release 4.0 without the ABI compatibility guarantees I was expecting. That said, I think KDE 4 (and in particular Kmail) is available for Win32. I wasn't completely serious though. Kmail has it's own standards violations and misc. problems. It's possible that finding a "good MUA" is like finding a flying unicorn, not possible. > I also stated in my previous post that the reply-to field was missing > from the SMTP header. I can manually add it from my MUA (as I did with > this mailing) but must I need to for each and every message I reply to > on this mailing list? Is it the MUA that's broken?... or the mailing list? Changing the Reply-To header is dangerous and definitely against standards. Automated software adding a Reply-To header is arguably against standards and arguably dangerous.[1] I'm not sure about Mail-Followup-To, but I suspect it's in the same boat. The standard header for information about where to send mail directed at the list is List-Post, which is added by the Debian mailing list software.[2] A good MUA should provide a "Reply to List" feature that uses the information in the List-Post header. It is more pleasant than any method involving manually specifying or editing the To/CC/BCC addresses. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/ [1] That doesn't prevent other mailing lists and list software from doing it, but it is bad practice. It's arguably dangerous because it does more damage to accidentally send a private message to a public list (It can't be un-sent.) than to send a list message to a private address (It can be forwarded or resent to the proper address.) [2] For good or ill, this isn't a "plain" address field, so it is a bit harder for MUA authors to support than Reply-To etc.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
