On 27/03/13 14:40, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > I created it, as far as I recall, from my copy direct from Ulrich, > which had no Mail-Followup-To
Correct, the problem originated when you replied[1] to Werner's mail[2]. Werner's mail had the following header: Mail-Followup-To: "Julian H. Stacey" <j...@berklix.com>, gnupg-users@gnupg.org The difference between that line and a simple Reply-to-All is that Werner would be in the recipient list with the Reply-to-All, and not with the Mail-Followup-To. Your reply should have only had gnupg-users@gnupg.org and your manually added CC to Ulrich as recipients, since your MUA would conclude that you don't need to CC yourself :). > I'm familiar with Reply-to: Not familar with Mail-Followup-To: > What's the difference ? Because Reply-To didn't really work out in practice for mailing lists, DJB came up with two "non-canon" mail headers to remove ambiguity from the meaning of the Reply-To header. He describes it in [3]. Not everybody agrees with his view/solution, though. Whether you like the headers Bernstein created or not, it would seem Werner didn't want to be on the recipient list, which is why I brought it up in my PS. HTH, Peter. [1]<http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2013-March/046339.html> [2]<http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2013-March/046337.html> [3]<http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html> -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter> _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
