From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:11:07 CDT
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
> You have utterly missed the point. Currently (RFC 1036) an article
> containing the fields:
> Reply-To: foo@bar.edu
> Followup-To: poster
> would result in a mailed followup to the specified address. Under the
> November draft text (the only text that I can readily examine for
> consequences, as it is the last text that you have made available in
> full to the WG), that same article with the same fields would result in
> *NO* followup at all, since there is no Mail-Copies-To field, and the
> default in the absence of such a field means that "The followup agent
> SHOULD NOT email a copy of the followup to the poster".
> That's silly; what's the point of "Followup-To: poster" is the *absence*
> of a completely different field causes *NO* followup at all to be sent.
> Even sillier is the legal set of fields:
> Reply-To: foo@bar.edu
> Followup-To: poster
> Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Mail-Copies-To should only govern the mailing of a copy of a *post*. In
the above situation, if the Followup-To is honored, no post is ever made,
and therefore there's nothing to make a copy of and Mail-Copies-To should
be ignored completely just as it would be ignored on an e-mail reply.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>