On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:37:40PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
VM/XEmacs does the right thing too, with both Reply-To: that contains multiple addresses, and multiple Reply-To: headers in the original message.
If I'm reading it correctly, multiple Reply-To headers violates RFC 2822. The fact that VM supports it is fine, but that doesn't mean Mailman should emit it.
If multiple headers are not supported, then I submit that we should assume that a multi address Reply-to may well be a bug in the spec; other address headers may appear multiple times, may they not?
I'd go read 2822, but I'm too damned tired<tm>.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015
"Usenet: it's enough to make you loose your mind." -- me