From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6165 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Sudish Joseph" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Mail without `From:' lines Date: 06 May 1996 13:33:42 -0400 Sender: Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146661 2773 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:44:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA18581 for ; Mon, 6 May 1996 11:20:30 -0700 Original-Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Mon, 6 May 1996 19:35:33 +0200 Original-Received: from ATLSER by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9347; Mon, 06 May 96 13:34:46 EDT Original-Received: by ATLSER (XAGENTA 4.0) id 3959; Mon, 6 May 1996 13:34:28 -0400 Original-Received: (from sj@localhost) by galaxy.atlissc.ibm.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA03864; Mon, 6 May 1996 13:33:42 -0400 Original-To: Per Abrahamsen In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of 06 May 1996 17:18:38 +0200 Original-Lines: 38 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.78/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6165 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6165 Per Abrahamsen writes: > How does it From: header looks? > > If it looks right, the example is irrelevant. The example simply points out that your notion of "real world" is incorrect. > SJ> I'll detect the > SJ> lack of a From: line when I try to reply to any such errant message, > > Have you ever received such a message? I have been unable to generate > one with sendmail or /bin/mail here. As I noted in another message, > sendmail insist on putting the envelope address in the From: line if > there isn't one in the first place. Precisely why I would prefer to have that one glaring exception be handled manually, instead of having GNUS decide for me. > SJ> At least make this an option that defaults to nil. > > Why should the default be something that is wrong in all examples you > and me can think of? Uh, why is it "wrong"? Would you rather that the default was to set up a situation where a user can reply to a mail only to have it be delivered to some auto-scanner that sinks it unread? We agree that the lack of "From:" is an extremely rare incident. Then why do you wish that the user forgo the pleasure of handling this once-in-a-lifetime incident herself? Besides, like you've shown by your sendmail example, the message would have to arrive by a really weird route to not have a From: line in the first place. Given this, the envelope sender information is unlikely to be pointing to the originating host; definitely not an address that should be auto-selected for replies. -Sudish