From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/13894 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Mail-Followup-To Date: 10 Feb 1998 22:13:35 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035153177 11724 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:32:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA10348 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:17:17 -0800 Original-Received: from gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (gizmo.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.102.31]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA05843 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:14:10 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (sina.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.3.5]) by gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAN10249; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:50:10 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:13:15 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA22669 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:13:06 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 592 invoked by uid 504); 10 Feb 1998 21:13:02 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 589 invoked from network); 10 Feb 1998 21:13:01 -0000 Original-Received: from xyplex34.uio.no (HELO sparky.gnus.org) (129.240.154.54) by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 1998 21:13:00 -0000 Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by sparky.gnus.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA13942; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:16:08 +0100 Mail-Copies-To: never Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of "10 Feb 1998 15:00:40 -0500" X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.24/XEmacs 19.15 X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ writes: > Yes, RFC 822 did not make a distinction between reply-to-author and > reply-to-list. These are aspects of the mail client, not the message > format. To a well-written MUA, these headers are redundant; the client > already makes the appropriate distinction. A badly written MUA, one that > does not make the distinction, is not going to honor these headers. Yup. But there are useful things that can be done with these headers. For instance -- on mailing lists where everyone that posts is assumed to be subscribed (like this one), the listserv could add a "Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org" header. It can also be used by the sender as a way to signal "I am subscribed to the list; don't Cc me or anybody else". -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen