Re: Mail without `From:' lines

["Sudish Joseph" <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM>]

[ Argh, I thought the Supercite keymap was hanging off C-c C-s, with
  unfortunate results.  Hmm, SC's keymap isn't to be found, a side
  effect of the change of hook names in message.el?  ]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> Kai Grossjohann <grossjoh@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
> > WIBNI Gnus were to use the information from X-From-Line in lieu of the
> > missing `From ' line?
>
> This is on the Red Gnus todo list.  Or rather, the mail backends will
> fudge a missing From: header from the "From " separator.

I wrote:
mishap> This isn't a good idea, as you're effectively setting the reply
mishap> address for the message to the envelope sender--and that's only
mishap> allowed for bounces, I think (or it might not be, I don't have the
mishap> time to dig into 821/822 to check this (*).  In fact, I'm pretty
mishap> certain that you're not supposed to reply to the conents of Sender:,
mishap> and that's a

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."

Here's 822 on replying to Sender.

822> 4.4.4.  AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
822>
822>     For systems which automatically  generate  address  lists  for
822>     replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:
822>
822>         o   The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent  notices  of
822>             any  problems in transport or delivery of the original
822>             messages.  If there is no  "Sender"  field,  then  the
822>             "From" field mailbox should be used.
822>
822>         o   The  "Sender"  field  mailbox  should  NEVER  be  used
822>             automatically, in a recipient's reply message.

Kai's original idea is better as it only effects what gets displayed
in the summary, no (illegal in this instance?) munging of headers.

Basically, this kind of thing gives me the shivers, since it could
well backfire in the manner that Pine's use of Newsgroup has.  No, I
haven't thought it through, but it still gives me the creeps. :-)

-Sudish "

(*) And I should have stuck to that, instead of losing more time now,
greeping 822 and then rewriting this :-)