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 Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Checking `Reply-To' Date: 22 Feb 1997 21:06:43 -0800 Message-ID: References: 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: 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 ; 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 for ; 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!:Ccqp: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 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 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.