On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:35:34PM -0700, Professional Software
At 23:10 2007-06-13 +0200, Dallman Ross wrote:
Well, gee, Sean. Last I heard, there was no "standard" for mailing-
list headers. There are some things we might call "frequently employed,"
or even "conventions." But certainly no "standard."
There are however, several RFCs covering recommended practices. These
MS-isms aren't amongst them, while List-Uns*bscribe and the like ARE.
What would be the point of deleting headers that Microsoft lists
software uses? Just because you don't like them, I guess?
Well, last I checked, THIS list doesn't run on an MS listserve, and yet,
the post from this chap carries those headers - your own reply does not
I was using mutt there, which I also often do. You can tell when I
use Outlook, because the Message-ID becomes unbelievably long and ugly. :-)
(Not to mention that there is an X-Mailer header, too.) But I don't think
my Outlook puts those headers in in any event. So, yeah, he's got
something going on beyond just the use of a Microsoft mail client . . . .
I suggested it as a potential solution to his particular problem. You seem
to have missed the rest of that paragraph where I suggested that he could
alternatley set it to be the same as what the Subject: header was being
changed to. Certainly, removing the header on a few test messages would
demonstrate that his MUA is leeching the message subject from this
I read the message, but I couldn't really follow how you were getting that
out of what he said. But you seem to have been right, so I guess the
overall murkiness did me no favors in the conclusions to which I jumped.
Sorry about that, Chief.
I still think he ought to use an X-Loop header, amongh other things.
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/