From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/46959 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: [despammed] Re: Why does Gnus generates Lines: header in mail? Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:30:04 -0400 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87n0pzj9db.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1033662714 7644 127.0.0.1 (3 Oct 2002 16:31:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:31:54 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17x8tE-0001z3-00 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:31:52 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 17x8ro-0007t7-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:30:24 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:31:05 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03197 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:30:52 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 22501 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2002 16:30:06 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 22496 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 16:30:05 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 16:30:05 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 17127 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2002 16:30:27 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Clemens Fischer's message of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 01:16:06 +0200") Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 61 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46959 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46959 Clemens Fischer wrote: > prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: >> If you want to know whether MFT will be generated at all, then that >> might be useful information that could be added to the initial >> message buffer, but it could be done in a different way that would >> not cause a wrong MFT to be sent. E.g., a field could be added >> like: >> X-Gnus-Make-MFT-For: ding@gnus.org > > this is what i proposed a few sentences later, only i called the field > X-Gnus-MFT. I thought you were suggesting that X-Gnus-MFT would contain the same thing that MFT would contain - i.e., the same addresses as To/Cc. X-Gnus-Make-MFT-For would be different - it would contain only the *subscribed* addresses from To/Cc. Then you would know that if you removed all those addresses from To/Cc and left only unsubscribed addresses, no MFT would be generated. This is more informative than a simple copy of the initial To/Cc. >>> let it be configurable: >>> (i) generate MFT like it is now, calculated on the To/Cc and a list of >>> subscribed email-lists, >>> (ii) always use the MFT as set by the user. >> >> Neither of those does what I want. [...] > > (i) _is_ the current behaviour! It's not clear. What does (i) do when the user puts MFT into the message manually before sending? Anyway, I think we already have enough configurability: if you don't want Gnus to ever generate MFT automatically, just don't set any message-subscribed-* variables. > only when starting a thread, there is no information in the To/Cc, We have to-list, to-address, header fields from group parameters, and message-default-mail-headers. At least. > if the user doesn't split lists into separate groups, we couldn't > even look at the To address of the group parameters. Nor should we. To/Cc is exactly where MFT will come from, so it's the only place we should look to guess what MFT will be when we send the message later. To/Cc can come from lots of different places in turn, but we don't care about that. > C-c C-f C-a (init unsubscribed-mft) or C-c C-f C-m (move to mft) > could have their semantics changed in that they re-generate the > header value according to the current contents of To/Cc. It would be better to add a new command for that, so as not to disturb users of the old commands. > reading through a batch of emails it seems that senders are commonly > stored in Return-Path, Delivered-To and [...] Delivered-To is a recipient address, not sender. paul