From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/4223 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: steve@miranova.com (Steven L. Baur) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Resending (was Re: Signature in forwarded messages) Date: 01 Dec 1995 09:54:35 -0800 Organization: Miranova Systems, Inc. Sender: steve@miranova.com Message-ID: References: <199511291831.KAA04524@block.statsci.com> <199511301646.LAA07768@thuban.gsfc.nasa.gov> <199512010532.VAA20684@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.27) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035145000 28893 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:16:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA01065 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:51:44 -0800 Original-Received: from miranova.com (steve@miranova.com [204.212.162.100]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 18:54:49 +0100 Original-Received: (from steve@localhost) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA00344; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:54:37 -0800 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/ In-Reply-To: Russ Allbery's message of 30 Nov 1995 21:32:56 -0800 Original-Lines: 17 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.16 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:4223 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:4223 >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes: Russ> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: >> Do you use this "resend" thingie much? I'm always forwarded >> things, and I don't think I haven't been resent a single mail >> ever... I would think it would be somewhat more confusing than >> simple forwarding? Russ> I use it a *lot*. Forwarding and bouncing have two very Russ> differnet purposes. I agree completely with Russ. I would also add, that (proper) bouncing would have a greater likelihood of being processed by the intended procmail rules by the recipient. -- steve@miranova.com baur