[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages

From: Yngve Svendsen
Subject: Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:22:36 +0100

At 18:01 16.11.2001 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Yngve Svendsen wrote:
> Hm. After some more consideration, I have decided that this doesn't look
> like the right way to solve the problem. If I am not completely
> misunderstanding the problem, wouldn't the correct way to solve this be
> to set a correct Reply-To header on these messages?

Yes, but apart from being slightly more invasive a patch, my personal
experience is that people often ignore the Reply-To while the keep the

(If you prefer the Reply-To, I definitely won't object; we just should
try to address this somehow.)

Actually RFC822 states that when a Reply-To header is present in a message, the client must always use _only_ the Reply-To list when replying, and not contents from any of the other headers, such as From.

I added the following Reply-To line to the current version 2 CVS:
Reply-To: $from, $mailto, $config{'GNATS_ADDR'}

In plaintext, this means that this field will contain all the recipients of the message itself (which means users replying will have themselves included on the recipient list, but that is a minor inconvenience), the From address (which is the person responsible for the PR) as well as the GNATS_ADDR.

Do you think this solves the problem? I was a bit uncertain whether to put the $from in the Reply-To, but I decided that would be the most logical thing to do.

I'll be kicking out a version 2.9.3 in a few days, just need to put in a couple more minor patches first.

- Yngve

reply via email to

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