[pulseaudio-discuss] Reply-to

[Felipe Contreras]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM, John Haxby <jch at thehaxbys.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, RFC 2822 has been obsoleted by RFC 5822, though I don't think that
> what it says about the Reply-To header has changed.

Nope:
   When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es)
to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.

> I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.   I said that some lists use
> reply-to and some don't and what the different lists use is up to the list
> maintainers.   I suppose you could be disagreeing with the fact that you'll
> have to learn to like it (or put it with it), but that's your prerogative.

That's not what I said. What I said is that the mailing lists that
choose to munge Reply-To, are making a mistake.

> If you really want to change the world then this is the wrong forum.   You
> should convince the mailmain maintainers to drop the option for a reply-to
> header

That's the purpose of this thread.

> and if you want to remove the reply-to header from the standard then
> you'll need to convince the right group of people on the IETF.

No need, the IETF already defined that Reply-To should be used by the
*author*, not the mailing list software.

> You should read what RFC5322 says about the treatment of Reply-To (section
> 3.6.2 and 3.6.3): you may decide that the client that you're using (gmail?)
> has a bug and in that case you should take it up with the maintainers of
> that client.

This has nothing to do with the client, this is about the mailing list
software changing the Reply-To field to something the *author* didn't
set, and that goes against RFC 5322. Have you actually read the
sections you yourself mentioned? (3.6.2 and 3.6.3)

> Anyway, whatever you choose to do, this discussion is inappropriate for this
> list, you should take it elsewhere.

The discussion about what this list chooses to do is pertinent to this list.

-- 
Felipe Contreras