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