| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: reply to ... |
| Date: | 2006-07-12 07:55:38 |
| Message-ID: | 87ejwrl0jp.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> 'k, isn't the Reply-To header part of an RFC somewhere? Or is it really an
> optional thing for an MUA to follow?
The relevant RFC would be 2822.
If mailers have started ignoring reply-to it would be *because* of lists that
set it. In the presence of such lists a mailer what's a mailer supposed to do
when you ask it to send a personal response to the author? How can it figure
out whether the list has done something wacky with the reply-to header or if
it's set as intended to the original author's desired contact point?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-12 12:52:41 | Re: [PATCHES] kerberos related warning |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-07-12 07:46:11 | Re: putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |