[ Stephen Campbell writes: ]
>
> If a message passing through resend contains its own Reply-To header and there
> is also a reply_to specified in the config file for the list, the resulting
> message contains both Reply-to headers.
Thanks, but it's a known problem:
>From: Jason L Tibbitts III <uunet!hpc.uh.edu!tibbs>
>Date: 23 Oct 1996 22:50:00 -0500
>>>>>> "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<
--
Dave Wolfe
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
