[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No need for CC, please
From: |
Pierre THIERRY |
Subject: |
Re: No need for CC, please |
Date: |
Tue, 2 May 2006 13:16:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
Scribit Jeroen Dekkers dies 02/05/2006 hora 10:18:
> And that means adding Mail-Followup-To or Mail-Copies-To headers to
> your mails. Well behaving clients will look at those headers and
> automatically include/exclude you from the CC list.
Those headers are not standard in any way, and at least controversial.
They are only honoured by a small number of MUAs (including mine, BTW).
Instead, Reply-To and List-* headers exist and are well-defined and
specified in standard track. List-* headers let the MUA know where a
reply is to be made for the list, whereas Reply-To let it know if and
where a reply to the original author is to be made.
I don't see why I should be using an under-specified and non-standard
feature where a consistent standard one exists. That's technically
nonsense, IMHO.
But prove me wrong if I am.
Sensibly,
Nowhere man
--
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: No need for CC, please, Marco Gerards, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Jeroen Dekkers, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please,
Pierre THIERRY <=
- Re: No need for CC, please, Thomas Schwinge, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/03
- Re: No need for CC, please, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/03
- Re: No need for CC, please, Thomas Schwinge, 2006/05/03
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/03
- Re: No need for CC, please, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/05/09