From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/11437 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Default mail address Date: 22 Jun 1997 19:18:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035151145 30250 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:59:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from sandy.calag.com (root@sandy [206.190.83.128]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00456 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:13:27 -0700 Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by sandy.calag.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAB16263 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:10:49 -0700 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18601 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:10:16 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:18:42 +0200 Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4) id TAA01864; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:18:21 +0200 (MET DST) Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no X-Attribution: Hrv X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/xDi&N7XG KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of "22 Jun 1997 11:32:26 -0400" X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.59/XEmacs 20.3(beta8) - "Copenhagen" Original-Xref: altair.xemacs.org dgnus-list:1827 Original-Lines: 27 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:11437 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:11437 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > >>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen writes: > > PA> For News, Son-of-RFC 1036 compliance: > [...] > PA> Gnus should not create Sender for mail. > > Pardon me, Per, but what the hoek have you been smoking? Using > Son-of-RFC 1036 as an argument for mail handling is absurd. According to SoR1036, `Sender' *should* be generated. According to RFC822, `Sender' should *not* be generated in the context in which Gnus does it. From that Per correctly infers that Gnus should not `Sender' create `Sender' for mail. What is wrong with that? Or, have I (or Per) misunderstood the relevant part of RFC822? Admittedly, RFC1036 is much clearer on that point. -- Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- "Silence!" cries Freydag. "I did not call thee in for a consultation!" "They are my innards! I will not have them misread by a poseur!"