From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36417 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 25 May 2001 12:17:01 -0400 Sender: prj@multivac.cwru.edu Message-ID: References: <01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.153439edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.163305edt.115259@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.172056edt.115272@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172005 8465 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:46:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 16740 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 16:17:02 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 16735 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 16:17:02 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (261@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 25 May 2001 16:17:02 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 28919 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2001 16:17:23 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Harry Putnam's message of "24 May 2001 19:10:16 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 18 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36417 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36417 Harry Putnam writes: > I'd be interested to hear Rats or others views of what I should be doing > regarding From and sender. As long as you're sending just your own messages, you don't need Sender at all. (You can read RFC 2822, 3.6.2 for yourself to confirm that the require Rat claims is there, isn't.) It's all a lot simpler than this thread makes it out to be. > Currently I've told gnus to stick my IP smtp server address in > Message-ID. Don't do that unless you control the SMTP server, and know that it won't generate Message-IDs using that same RHS. See my other message for more details. paul