Re: Mail without `From:' lines

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

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.

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


4.4.4.  AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO

    For systems which automatically  generate  address  lists  for
    replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:

        o   The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent  notices  of
            any  problems in transport or delivery of the original
            messages.  If there is no  "Sender"  field,  then  the
            "From" field mailbox should be used.

        o   The  "Sender"  field  mailbox  should  NEVER  be  used
            automatically, in a recipient's reply message.

        o   If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply  should
            go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to
            the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.



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

-Sudish