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

List:       majordomo-workers
Subject:    Re: Huh?  Reply-to not being removed?
From:       Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs () hpc ! uh ! edu>
Date:       1996-10-24 3:50:00
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>>> "D" == DMGibbs  <DMGibbs@aol.com> writes:

D> As you can see from the below message header, the "REPLY-TO" header
D> appears twice... and some mailers (AOL's in particular... I don't know
D> about others) are obeying the 1st header and ignoring the 2nd header.

Yep, Reply-To: doesn't get removed.  Ugh.  Now, adding a Reply-To: back to
the list is generally considered evil, but that doesn't mean that we should
allow this level of brokenness.  (I don't believe that RFC822 permist more
than one Reply-To: header.)

I believe that editing resend, searching for the line:

         || (/^received:/i && defined($opt_R))               # skip only if "-R" set

and adding:
   
         || (/^reply-to:/i && defined($opt_r)) # skip if adding our own Reply-To:

immediately after it will fix this behavior, but I don't have time to test
it or generate a patch now.  The reason you can't just add this to
skip_headers is because you don't want to take out a user-specified
Reply-To: if you not adding one.  Then again, you really _never_ want to
override someone's Reply-To: because then they might not get personal
replies.

 - J<

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