From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9975
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Checking `Reply-To'
Date: 22 Feb 1997 21:06:43 -0800
Message-ID: <m2rai8861o.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <kig7mk11rrk.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <wkzpwwnsan.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149919 21646 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:38:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:38:39 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
	by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA22757
	for <steve@miranova.com>; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:09:17 -0800
Original-Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <FAA15222@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 05:54:55 +0100
Original-Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA20598;
	Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:06:45 -0800
Mail-Copies-To: never
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of 22 Feb 1997 21:57:04 -0500
Original-Lines: 50
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.15/XEmacs 20.1
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9975
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9975

Stainless Steel Rat writes:

>>>>>> "Hrv" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

Hrv> Regardless of GNKSA, I think Gnus should perform the same checks for
Hrv> `Reply-To' as it does for `From'.  What do you think?

I felt the GNKSA/U review of RadicalNews was mean-spirited and the
reviewer had an axe to grind, but that's besides the point.

> I think this is a violation of RFC822, actually.  It depends on just what
> kinds of checking Gnus performs.  A common use of Reply-To (and one of the
> intents of RFC822) is to specify a gatewayed mailbox that will work when
> the conventional "user@domain" format will fail.  Such addresses have
> potentially infinite chance to fail the tests for an Internet "user@domain"
> address because most are completely different, and many are technically
> illlegal.

Yup.  Consider example A.2.4 from RFC822:

     A.2.4.  Committee activity, with one author

             George is a member of a committee.  He wishes to have any
        replies to his message go to all committee members.

            From:     George Jones <Jones@Host.Net>
            Sender:   Jones@Host
            Reply-To: The Committee: Jones@Host.Net,
                                     Smith@Other.Org,
                                     Doe@Somewhere-Else;

        Note  that  if  George  had  not  included  himself   in   the


     August 13, 1982              - 37 -                      RFC #822

 
     Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages


        enumeration  of  The  Committee,  he  would not have gotten an
        implicit reply; the presence of the  "Reply-to"  field  SUPER-
        SEDES the sending of a reply to the person named in the "From"
        field.

Example A.2.6 has another example containing an address that would
otherwise be considered invalid.
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.