* Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 21:22]: | Josh Huber wrote: | > Will Yardley writes: | > | > 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. | | true, however if your admin were to add this list to the server (say for | internal lists, or common lists) then you would have no way to change | this (assuming you do not have root access on the machine). if it's | your own machine and your own installation of qmail then no problem.
Yeah, and because not every mail _user_ is running it's own qmail server, this is a PITA... | > 2) Having a Reply-To and a Mail-Followup-To header at the same time is | > fine. | | yes, but as mentioned below, mutt appears to ignore Reply-To even on | reply if MFT is set. maybe i'm wrong, but that's what i remember | happening. Huh? (see below) | > 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. | | well mutt's default implementation (at least) appears to follow MFT even | with 'reply' or 'group-reply' - am i wrong? this is usually desirable, | but has caused me some confusion in the past. I didn't check for group reply, but when I reply to your mail, it will be sent to you directly, and when I 'L'ist reply, as I'm doing now, it is sent to the list. Strange, I can't think of any directive that would cause this behaviour... | > 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? ;) | | haha well i am not holding my breath.... Neither are MSOE's developers ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor.
msg21042/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
