Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Matthew Hawkins (matthewtopic.com.au)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 11:25:35 CDT
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> good MUAs ignore Reply-To when it's pointing back to the list :)
I guess RFC-822 compliance then is bad in your books?
Read Section 4.4.3 & 4.4.4
Of course, you can feel free to _manually_ dick with mail headers and
not violate the RFC ;) What a balls-up!
> Mutt has a useful option called "ignore_list_reply_to"...from the manual:
It also has a (IMHO) more useful function "list-reply":
Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses
which match the addresses given by the ``lists or subscribe''
commands, but also honor any Mail-Followup-To header(s) if the
``$honor_followup_to'' configuration variable is set. Using this when
replying to messages posted to mailing lists helps avoid duplicate
copies being sent to the author of the message you are replying to.
On the original subject, PAM support in local is probably unnecessary
because the only thing it'd be useful for (authenticating against
something other than /etc/passwd) can also be achieved using
another delivery agent instead (eg virtual).
On a similar note, could PAM "session" functionality be used to
determine if a client should be allowed to relay? I'm specifically
thinking about using pam_radius to permit relaying from currently
dialled in systems...that would be handy for ISP's in particular...
- To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content (not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users