Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > yes. this seems like kind of a bad idea to me, and something best > left to MUAs - even if they are slow to adopt this, it seems as if > enforcing this in an MTA might cause some problems. for instance if > i set the 'Reply-To' header to my address, but my mail server, > running qmail (mine doesn't really) adds a 'Mail-Followup-To' header > with the list address. Of course i don't use mutt (actually i do, > but just suppose) so i have no easy way of overriding this header. > > now when someone using an MUA that honors this header responds, it > won't respond to my reply-to address. i realize that this example > might be a bit far fetched, but it's just one example.
Er, a few points: 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically, you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you add addresses to this list, the header won't get generated. 2) Having a Reply-To and a Mail-Followup-To header at the same time is fine. 3) An MUA that honors the MFT header will use it for *followups* only -- replies should go to the address specified in the Reply-To header. > agreed! i guess i was just trying to say that most of us > communicate with non-mutt users frequently (i am the only mutt user > at my work, in my family, etc. etc.) and so it's to our advantage to > try and push for things like this to be made standard. Definately. On lists that are technical and 90% use mutt it is nice. What would be really nice is if MS OE supported these kinds of things. Hah, right...how many years until they will? ;) ttyl, -- Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
