From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6122 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 19:11:57 -0400 Sender: Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146625 2643 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:43:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:43:45 +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 QAA01539 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 16:47:30 -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 ; Sat, 4 May 1996 01:12:57 +0200 Original-Received: from ATLSER by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8789; Fri, 03 May 96 19:11:54 EDT Original-Received: by ATLSER (XAGENTA 4.0) id 3843; Fri, 3 May 1996 19:12:32 -0400 Original-Received: (from sj@localhost) by galaxy.atlissc.ibm.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA08531; Fri, 3 May 1996 19:11:57 -0400 Original-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 03 May 1996 20:31:06 +0200 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.78/Emacs 19.30 Original-Lines: 53 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6122 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6122 [ 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 writes: > Kai Grossjohann 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 :-)