<<< 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: Nicolas Rachinsky <mutt-devel-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 
Subject: Re: mutt/2304: reply / group reply behavior broken WRT $reply_to and 
$reply_self
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:37:55 +0200

 * Derek Martin <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-07-20 02:55 +0200]:
 >  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.
 
 In other cases I would get an different behaviour with the 'proper'
 settings. :(
 
 Or is there any way to get the current one with your patch?
 
 BTW:
 I'm not sure if the RFC applies in what to do if I reply to one of my
 own mails in $record.
 
 Nicolas
 
 -- 
 http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas