Cliff Sarginson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> > the only quasi-official reference i've been able to find on the > > Mail-Followup-To header is: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt > There are many RFC's in use as "standards" that never got beyond being > draft standards "officially" I believe. well their point seems to be that since it doesn't appear in rfc 2822, it's likely that the proposal was rejected. i don't disagree with your point; however it's difficult to push other vendors to add this feature to their products if it's _not_ a standard. if outlook express were the one pushing it instead of mutt, perhaps there might be some chance of it being adopted without being standard. at this point, almost no 'popular' MUAs honor this header. > To answer your question I should think there is zilch you can do about > it. Sounds to me like the pine-people are just batting you off. possibly so. however as i've said, insisting that we (ie mutt users) are doing the Right Thing is a bit presumptious (even if it's true). > Inter-operabilty.. who needs it ..lol. Wietse Venema, the author of > Postfix, remarked once on the amount of code he had in his software to > get around broken mailer implementations. yes i've heard him mention this many times; as usual, he's quite correct. the fact is that we all have to deal with non-standard compliant things every day. that doesn't mean that complying with those standards isn't a good thing to strive for of course... but we do live in a nasty world, and we have to deal with nasty stuff frequently. -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
