On Monday 2009 January 05 17:27:44 Ken Teague wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > See, I just think you guys should stop using bad clients.
Kmail
> > replies to the list (and only to the list) by default. (Which, actually,
> > appears to be a violation on the relevant standards. :P)
>
> Is Kmail available for Win32? I'm at work on my laptop and don't have
> the luxury of Linux all day.
I don't really know. I haven't been following KDE development since they
decided to release 4.0 without the ABI compatibility guarantees I was
expecting. That said, I think KDE 4 (and in particular Kmail) is available
for Win32.
I wasn't completely serious though. Kmail has it's own standards violations
and misc. problems. It's possible that finding a "good MUA" is like finding
a flying unicorn, not possible.
> I also stated in my previous post that the reply-to field was missing
> from the SMTP header. I can manually add it from my MUA (as I did with
> this mailing) but must I need to for each and every message I reply to
> on this mailing list? Is it the MUA that's broken?... or the mailing list?
Changing the Reply-To header is dangerous and definitely against standards.
Automated software adding a Reply-To header is arguably against standards and
arguably dangerous.[1] I'm not sure about Mail-Followup-To, but I suspect
it's in the same boat. The standard header for information about where to
send mail directed at the list is List-Post, which is added by the Debian
mailing list software.[2]
A good MUA should provide a "Reply to List" feature that uses the information
in the List-Post header. It is more pleasant than any method involving
manually specifying or editing the To/CC/BCC addresses.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
[1] That doesn't prevent other mailing lists and list software from doing it,
but it is bad practice. It's arguably dangerous because it does more damage
to accidentally send a private message to a public list (It can't be
un-sent.) than to send a list message to a private address (It can be
forwarded or resent to the proper address.)
[2] For good or ill, this isn't a "plain" address field, so it is a bit harder
for MUA authors to support than Reply-To etc.
mailing lists versus usenet / reply to list, reply-to, reply
Seriously though, mutt *is* a 
