[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: Ideas on Reply-To-List
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-11-29 17:11:51
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Saturday 29 November 2003 16:30, Andras Mantia wrote:
> Matej Cepl wrote:
> > (sorry for breaking the thread)
> >
> > On Saturday 29 November 2003, Andras Mantia wrote:
> >> Right? This breaks again consistency, if we talk about it.
> >
> > No, it doesn't because it follows standards, I mean real standards.
> > Like RFC2919 and RFC2369. And that is what matters and not what
> > some broken MUAs (and administrators trying to acommodate them)
> > think.
>
> Read the rest of the paragraph, where I talk that the consistency is
> broken because the current Reply behavior depends on the Post Address
> you set in KMail folder properties. I don't think any RFC talks about
> it. ;-)

That's wrong. If the user didn't specify a non-empty mailing-list 
address for a folder then KMail uses the List-Post header. It's 
arguable whether KMail should prefer the List-Post header or the value 
the user provided. We chose to give the user-provided value preference. 
Of course, this way the user can easily fool KMail (that's what you are 
doing) but in case of a wrong List-Post header a KMail user has the 
chance to overrule this wrong List-Post header. Giving this power to 
the user is IMO more important than making it impossible for user like 
you to fool KMail.

Regards,
Ingo

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]