Re: Reply to Group?

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Tue, 13 November 17:37 Martin Leopold wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:37:40 Peter Bloomfield wrote:
>> libbalsa_find_word(pair[0], "x-beenthere x-mailing-list to") should 
>> probably just be libbalsa_find_word(pair[0], "x-beenthere x-mailing-list"). 
>> The `to' address is in a separate message->to_list; I guess we could use 
>> that as a fallback if we don't find "x-beenthere" or "x-mailing-list", but 
>> only if it's a single address; if there's more than one, how can we tell 
>> which is the mailing-list?
> 
> I'm subscribed to a mailing list with wich reply-group doesn't work (local 
> mbox). After looking at the headers I noticed that neither x-beenthere or 
> x-mailing list were not included in the header. The list is run by ezlml 
> (chosen by my ISP) and in the documentation they don't say anything about 
> how to set it up to send any of the 2 fields.

Any message header starting "X-" is non standard by definition and as such 
will not be found in a standards document.  Furthermore balsa should not have 
hard coded behaviour that depends on any "X-" header.

> So i tried to look ouround for the "official" filds in some rfc, but I 
> couldn't find any resebleing those 2. What I could find, though, was RFC2369 
> which doesn't talk about any of the fields but about list-help, list-post 
> and others. Do you know what the "right" fields are?

RFC 2821 and 2822 concern themselves only with basic interoperability.  
Headers not required for basic interoperation functionality will be defined in 
other documents.

> If RFC2369 is the only document on the subject wouln't it be right to set 
> the reply address when selecting grop-reply to the value of the "List-Post" 
> field instead? If I look at the headers from the ezmlm managed list the 
> list-post field is included, so this would solve my problem.

RFC2369 is a standard track document, so there is no good reason not to 
implement it.

Brian Stafford