From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36446 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 18:47:56 -0400 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> <01May25.161238edt.115273@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172028 8622 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:47:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 20966 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 22:47:56 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 20961 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 22:47:56 -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 22:47:56 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 29823 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2001 22:48:18 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "26 May 2001 00:34:36 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 20 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36446 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36446 Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro=DFjohann) writes: > If, however, the whole thing comes from 30 years of practice, it's not > possible to quote chapter and verse. But in that case, you'd expect him to say that, instead of things like: > Frobbing [Sender] directly would be a violation of the requirements of > RFCs 2822 and 1034. and: > The canonical mailbox is required by RFC 2822. Kai again: > Hm. Maybe we just don't understand. (I think I do understand, but > I'm biased...) Aren't we all? paul