[Mailman-Users] Reply-To: munging (was Re: [Mailman-Developers] Feedback ...)
Barry A. Warsaw
barry at zope.com
Fri Mar 15 19:39:10 CET 2002
>>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui at plaidworks.com> writes:
CVR> The other thing I'd like like to see is an option to 'strip
CVR> all reply-tos' so that a reply-to that is set as it enters
CVR> the mailman system is removed and not propogated. Allowing
CVR> and end-user's reply-to to propogate can cause all sorts of
CVR> havoc, and frankly, can be used to mailbomb someone if you
CVR> want to play troll.
Let me summarize what the system does now (apologies if I'm just
repeating myself ;). I think it is flexible enough to support any
Reply-To: policy your list owners might want to impose.
- You can config MM to strip any Reply-To: header on the original
message, or preserve it. This is orthogonal to any Reply-To:
munging that may happen later.
- You can config MM to set a Reply-To: to point back to the list, or
to any explicit address you may want.
- All the Reply-To: addresses that will show up on the reflected
message are put in a single Reply-To: header, so as to be maximally
RFC compliant (RFC 2822 doesn't allow for multiple Reply-To:
headers, but does allow for multiple addresses on a single Reply-To:
-- go figure).
CVR> Bob's got a point. There has to be a way to say "don't
CVR> override", although, if you don't enable the option for a
CVR> list, don't you already get that?
I've totally lost context on this question so I can't answer it.
More information about the Mailman-Users