[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changes for emacs 28

From: Robert Pluim
Subject: Re: Changes for emacs 28
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:52:49 +0200

>>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:26:15 +0000, Gregory Heytings <ghe@sdf.org> said:

    >> Gregory has a 'Reply-To' header which points at ghe@sdf.org. I guess
    >> your Outlook client honours it a bit too much

    Gregory> Indeed.  I know this, but I don't know why this is the case (*).  I
    Gregory> used to explicitly set Reply-To to emacs-devel@gnu.org in my MUA, 
    Gregory> Eli asked me to stop to do this.

I think in that case rmail replies only to emacs-devel@, which means
Eli has to add back the other recipients. Eli, do we need a "reply to
'From+To+CC+Reply-To'" feature in rmail? ("wide reply" in Gnus parlance).

    Gregory> (*) I guess, but I'm not 100% sure, that Mailman honors the strict
    Gregory> DMARC policy ("quarantine") of the the sdf.org domain.  So mails 
    Gregory> from that domain are forwared to the list with a "From:
    Gregory> emacs-devel@gnu.org Reply-To: <original sender>" while those sent 
    Gregory> other domains are forwared to the list with a "From: <original
    sender> ".

Yes, that matches the Mailman documentation. Iʼm not sure what a good
solution is; Mailman adding a Reply-To with both the sender and
emacs-devel would no doubt also break either Outlook or rmail or
both. Not adding a Reply-To at all means the sender would get dropped


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]