<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

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--