mhonarc-users

Re: MHonArc v2.1.1

1998-02-19 10:58:20
to follow up on what Earl Hood said:

 > I think $fields{'from'} should be referred before $fields{'reply-to'}.
 > Some lists add a line `Reply-To: <List Address>' automatically,
 > so it is possibly better to look at From: lines first to identify the 
auth

No, no, no. There are also quite a lot of people out
there where one should/has to the Reply-To: to reach them!
It's also the sense of Reply-To: to to override the setting
of From:.  So as long as the order is hardcoded in mhonarc
one has to check reply-to before from.

I agree with Achim on this point.  Reply-To signifies the preferred
address any responses should be sent to.  I guess the problem is
the purpose of "From": Does it denote the author of the message,
or where a response should be directed to?


The basic problem is that the header vocabulary is too limited to
cover all the functionalities needed, and not consistently used
as a result.

There is an Internet-Draft afloat which discusses how the
existing usage is a mess and tries to create a path to some
sense.


For lists that insist adding/replacing list address with their
own list address it's much better to introduce a an ordered list
of Headers to check that  can be set on a archive by archive version,
e.g., say

<FindFromAddr>
original-reply-to
x-reply-to
from
-default-
</FindFromAddr>

Basically, the same thing that DATEFIELDS does in v2.1.1 can
be done for determining the "From" (ie. a new FROMFIELDS resource).


In cases like this is makes sense to expose all suspects on the
message page; using the header markup and without prejudice.  The
opportunities we can offer by mailto: links don't have to be as
constipated as the MUA behavior.

Al Gilman

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>