Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:56:47AM -0400, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:59:39AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The bodies are approximately[0] identical - the headers are
> > not[1]. Usually, one was sent to you, and one to the list. Most people
> > will filter these into different folders.
> 
> I've always sorted my mail based on the To/CC headers -- which results in
> messages being filed properly regardless of the route they take, and is not
> dependent on details of the list manager*.
> 
> * The notable exception being old broken list managers that actually rewrote
>   the To: header; I'm not sure if there are still any of these around.

I have never been willing to reimplement my mail filters in terms of
some sort of rfc822 address parsing, or to include the dozens of pages
of regexps needed to handle them properly.

Bcc:s will also screw you over, as will manual bounces (forwarding
without changing the headers) and tools which send mail in the name of
others (such as some MLMs). There are probably some other things I
haven't seen happen yet, too.

The List-Id headers specified in rfc2919 were created to address these
problems.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

pgpIcA2MIbDqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature