11 Jun
2004
11 Jun
'04
1:15 p.m.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
reply-to: headers are bad.
Oh, on that I agree. There are draft RFCs to specify these things better, eg seperating the concept of 'Reply-to' into one policy for list related replies and another for personal, mutt supports these drafts already[1], but there hasnt been much apparent movement in these drafts becoming standards track. (primarily because there are already similar headers defined and RFC standards tracked for NNTP readers/posters). 1. which can be annoying when dealing with mutt users. regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st Fortune: The soul would have no rainbow had the eyes no tears.