From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6123 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 18:58:25 -0400 Sender: Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146626 2644 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) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from spork.callamer.com (root@spork.callamer.com [199.74.141.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA01569 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 16:48:30 -0700 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by spork.callamer.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA02295 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 16:46:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 00:59:26 +0200 Original-Received: from ATLSER by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8692; Fri, 03 May 96 18:58:25 EDT Original-Received: by ATLSER (XAGENTA 4.0) id 3838; Fri, 3 May 1996 18:58:59 -0400 Original-Received: (from sj@localhost) by galaxy.atlissc.ibm.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA08503; Fri, 3 May 1996 18:58:25 -0400 Original-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 03 May 1996 20:31:06 +0200 Original-Lines: 39 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.78/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6123 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6123 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. 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