From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/33624 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stainless Steel Rat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: ms outlook replyers Date: 13 Dec 2000 00:24:53 -0500 Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87snntax3y.church.of.emacs@meta.verbum.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035169696 26129 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:08:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from lisa.math.uh.edu (lisa.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.49]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDC4D049A for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:25:34 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by lisa.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAB32435; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:25:33 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:24:43 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged)) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27880 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:24:34 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from peorth.gweep.net (h0060978d8c91.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.75.115]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A96AD049A for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:24:59 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from ratinox@localhost) by peorth.gweep.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02997; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:24:54 -0500 Original-To: "(ding)" X-Attribution: Rat In-Reply-To: Colin Walters's message of "12 Dec 2000 21:11:45 -0500" Original-Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:33624 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:33624 * Colin Walters on Tue, 12 Dec 2000 | Yes, some applications use the Sender: address as the Reply-to field. | I believe this was discussed previously on this list. I think what it | came down to is that there is no consensus on what the Sender: field | is really for. RFC 822 is describes Sender explicitly and in detail. -- Rat \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \