From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25849 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2001 00:02:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2001 00:02:42 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 166JJE-0002uG-00; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:24:04 -0500 Received: from fwall.clustra.com ([194.143.59.98] helo=smtp.trd.clustra.com) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 166JGx-0002mL-00 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:21:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 5160 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2001 22:21:41 -0000 Received: from yngves-vpn.clustra.com (HELO 0dbtq2nsupuzl4u.clustra.com) (10.22.1.3) by maestro.clustra.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2001 22:21:41 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011120231706.00b72c20@10.10.1.1> X-Sender: yngves@10.10.1.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Gerald Pfeifer From: Yngve Svendsen Subject: Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages Cc: help-gnats@gnu.org,"Joseph S. Myers" In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011115012156.05189d30@10.10.1.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: help-gnats-admin@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnats-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnats@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussion about GNU GNATS List-Archive: Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 12:49:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 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 >Cc. > >(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 _______________________________________________ Help-gnats mailing list Help-gnats@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnats