Re: mutt/2304: reply / group reply behavior broken WRT $reply_to and $reply_self
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2304; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Derek Martin <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: mutt/2304: reply / group reply behavior broken WRT $reply_to and
$reply_self
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:48:28 -0400
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:25:01PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-07-17 17:45 +0200]:
> > More precisely, mutt will not honor a reply-to header when
> > replying to messages written by oneself unless reply_self is
> > set. The inference that's going on here is that the reply-to
> > header is an address that points to the message's sender, so if
> > the sender is removed from the recipient list, so is the
> > reply-to header. Strikes me as the right thing to do.
>
> I like the this (the current) behaviour.
You will still get this behavior with proper settings of $reply_to and
$reply_self. The current behavior is patently wrong, because the
Reply-to header IS NOT a reference to the sender's address, as clearly
stated in RFC 822.
--
Derek D. Martin
http://www.pizzashack.org/
GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEvtLcHEnASN++rQIRAvizAJ90vgWXXR7WhTcZkG+SQV5Dk04bqQCfewjY
Py/8i1jjUEIkbfTV++3+QuE=
=JSQa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--