Setup of DNS caching name server for home server

Bruno Wolff III bruno at wolff.to
Sun Sep 27 01:11:35 UTC 2009


On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 00:30:55 +0930,
  Tim <ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 09:02 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > some of the fedora lists mung reply-to, I strip them out so that
> > it doesn't break the reply function (which is only supposed to reply
> > to the address(es) in the from header).
> 
> Umm, no.  That's NOT the case that it should ONLY reply to the from
> header.  It IS the case that in the absence of a reply-to header it uses
> the from header, but where the reply-to header exists it should ONLY
> reply to the reply-to header address(es).  Do more reading about how
> e-mail works...

The context was reply to sender as opposed to reply to all or reply to
list.

> The reply-to header is an overriding instruction.

Even when using reply to all or reply to list, it is only supposed to
override the from header. So that if there is a reply-to header, reply
to all should reply to addresses on the reply-to header and then cc
header.

> In general, you press reply to reply to a message, and your mail client
> does what it's supposed to do (as I just outlined, above).  A reply-all

I disagree. In general you should use reply to all, and if you want to
reply privately to the sender you should use reply.

> feature is a special function for replying in an usual manner (one that
> the message you're replying to hasn't been preset for).  Such as
> ignoring the reply-to override.




More information about the fedora-list mailing list