From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6124 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Sudish Joseph" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Mail without `From:' lines Date: 03 May 1996 20:39:41 -0400 Sender: Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146626 2645 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:43:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC) 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 SAA02295 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 18:26:20 -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 ; Sat, 4 May 1996 02:40:41 +0200 Original-Received: from ATLSER by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9325; Fri, 03 May 96 20:39:39 EDT Original-Received: by ATLSER (XAGENTA 4.0) id 3846; Fri, 3 May 1996 20:40:18 -0400 Original-Received: (from sj@localhost) by galaxy.atlissc.ibm.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08713; Fri, 3 May 1996 20:39:42 -0400 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: "Sudish Joseph"'s message of 03 May 1996 19:11:57 -0400 Original-Lines: 17 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.78/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6124 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6124 I gibbered: > Anyways, the above paragraph was going to be changed to end on the > lines of: "you're not supposed to reply to the contents of Sender, > and Sender's a whole lot better for this purpose than the envelope > recipient (as mailing list expanders are required to rewrite > env. rec.); so I'd assume that replying _manually_ to env. recip. is > strictly taboo." Um, I meant envelope sender wherever I said envelope recipient, of course. Also, I think I'd prefer having a blank display to even Kai's suggestion of using env. sender--IBM's vnet mail gateway rewrites it to a source-routed form (advertising itself, of course) that is so ugly to look at that a blank would be far better. :-) -Sudish