[Wolves] reply

[Old Dan]

Ron Wellsted wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 October 2003 5:50 pm, Old Dan wrote:
>>Aquarius wrote:
>>>Old Dan spoo'd forth:
>>>
>>>>>Ah. Might be because I have an explicit Reply-To set which is different
>>>>
>>>>>from the Sender address. I suspect Jono may have too. The problem may
>>>>
>>>>>be the lameness of your email client ;)
>>>>
>>>>I'm using Tbird.
>>>>You just called Tbird lame.
>>>>Dear oh dear.  :)
>>>
>>>Hey, mutt doesn't seem to do it. Fuck a bunch of XUL, I say ;)
>>
>>Bite me.  :)
>>That isn't the problem, anyway - if you'd care to look, my Reply-To is
>>different to the From line also.  I can't see what the difference in the
>>headers *is*, to be honest.
>>I must be blind.
> 
> Weird.
> Dan's message has:
> Reply-To: Wolverhampton Linux User Group <wolves at mailman.lug.org.uk>
> 
> Aq's:
> Reply-To: aquarius at kryogenix.org,
>  Wolverhampton Linux User Group <wolves at mailman.lug.org.uk>
> 
> Mine:
> Reply-To: ron at wellsted.org.uk,
>  Wolverhampton Linux User Group <wolves at mailman.lug.org.uk>
> 
> This is where the problem is comming from,  the MUAs are just obeying the 
> rules.
> 
> Maybe the problem is mailman adding to the "Reply-To: " instead of replacing 
> it?
That doesn't even show up in Tbird so I guess in that respect it /is/ 
lame...

So you're saying that the problem is with mailman being ::cough:: iffy?

...and Mutt being 14m3 and not following the rules properly with 
reply-to fields (and so allowing the authors not to notice they've 
screwed up? :P )

-- 
Dan