Re: setting reply-to header for mailing list
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:45AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> William Yardley <mutt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:07:01AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > > Eugeny N Dzhurinsky <eugenydzh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to automatically add reply-to header with address
> > > > of mailing list when posting message to the mailing list?
> > > That's not what Reply-To: is for. It is, however, what the
> > > Mail-Followup-To: header is for.
> > That's debatable.... M-F-T was never adopted as an official standard
> > and is implemented by only a few MUAs (and not by any popular ones).
> > Reply-To will work for this purpose, and will be honored by more
> > mailers.
> For a very small definition of "work". If mutt was about going along
> with whatever other MUAs did no matter how broken, it would by now be
> a GUI-less version of Outhouse Express.
Perhaps, but the point of an MUA is to communicate with other people,
most of whom (except on certain technical lists, mabye) are not using
mailers that honor or generate MFT.
I am not saying that there's anything wrong with generating an MFT
header (as you can see, this message probably has one) - but if the idea
is to direct followups to the appropriate place, I don't think that
doing so will really make much of a difference.
In addition, people using MFT improperly can end up causing extra
problems (for example, when people "Reply-All" instead of list-reply
from mutt). I also disagree with mutt not allowing you to edit mft when
edit_headers is set - there are times where you might want to CC people
individually, but direct replies only to the list, etc. etc.
> Reply-To: governs private replies; Mail-Followup-To: governs followups
> ("list replies"). Trying to make the first do the job of the second
> means /none/ of this works, anywhere.
See my other response, but no.
w