According to David DeSimone:
> Is this the right format for the User-Agent header? I thought it was
> supposed to be "agent-name/version-num". Something like this:
>
> User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.6i
Yes, as far as I know, it is supposed to be "User-Agent: /"
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The
Since the "User-Agent" header is now the RFC-defined standard (and not just
"window-dressing"), could we please finally have it replace the "X-Mailer"
header by default in the next stable, publicly-released version of mutt?
"User-Agent" appears to have replaced "X-Mailer" in the last several
dev
Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +fprintf (fp, "User-Agent: Mutt %s\n", MUTT_VERSION);
Is this the right format for the User-Agent header? I thought it was
supposed to be "agent-name/version-num". Something like this:
User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.6i
--
David DeSimone | "The d
Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 04 Nov 1999:
> If you're so concerned, and you're sure it's a no-brainer, why don't you
> just fix it and submit the patch?
I'd like to see this happen too, so here you go (patch attached).
What's the procedure for submitting a patch to the develo
Russell Hoover [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Since the "User-Agent" header is now the RFC-defined standard (and not just
> "window-dressing"), could we please finally have it replace the "X-Mailer"
> header by default in the next stable, publicly-released version of mutt?
>
> "User-Agent" appears
