| Summary | IMP does not respect Mail-Followup-To header |
| Queue | IMP |
| Queue Version | HEAD |
| Type | Enhancement |
| State | Rejected |
| Priority | 2. Medium |
| Owners | slusarz (at) horde (dot) org |
| Requester | chutz (at) gg3 (dot) net |
| Created | 09/22/2005 (7353 days ago) |
| Due | |
| Updated | 09/22/2005 (7353 days ago) |
| Assigned | |
| Resolved | 09/22/2005 (7353 days ago) |
| Milestone | |
| Patch | No |
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
Obviously there must be valid reasons it never made it past draft
stage (notwithstanding anyone's personal insistence that this is a
"better" solution - e.g.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2000-November/007944.html).
RFC 2919 was instead selected as the RFC method for responding to mail
messages which, as Jan mentioned, has been supported by IMP for years.
Assigned to Michael Slusarz
State ⇒ Rejected
used by IMP since years. This one doesn't look like being any
standard, nor well supported by mail applications.
But I'll give Michael the final call.
State ⇒ New
Priority ⇒ 2. Medium
Type ⇒ Enhancement
Summary ⇒ IMP does not respect Mail-Followup-To header
Queue ⇒ IMP
message from a mailing list, one can either "Reply" to the sender, or
"Reply to all" and send a copy to all addresses listed in the headers.
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html