Subject: Re: reply-to header buglet

From: [email-masked] (Alan Thew)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 19:28:12 GMT

According to Barry Landy  <[email-masked]>:
>A Reply-To: header in a received is displayed as
>Reply To
>(as is also the case in a message being composed, if the Reply-To is set 
>up in a customised header).
>
>INterestingly enough, when displaying the headers in fullheader mode, the 
>format is
>Reply-To:
>
>Is this deliberate (feature) or a mistake (bug)?
>If deliberate, is it more confusing (to those who know the RFC calls it 
>Reply-To) or less confusing (to naive users)?

I've always wondered about this but have lost no sleep about it :-)
It looks like a feature...

-- 
Alan Thew
[email-masked]   ...!uknet!liv!alan.thew   Tel: +44 151 794-4497
University of Liverpool, Computing Services     Fax: +44 151 794-4442

---

From: Barry Landy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 17:06:59 +0100

Is this deliberate (feature) or a mistake (bug)?
If deliberate, is it more confusing (to those who know the RFC calls it 
Reply-To) or less confusing (to naive users)?
=======================================================================
Barry Landy, Head of Systems and Development,
University of Cambridge Computing Service
[email-masked]      0-1223-334713   +44-1223-334713