From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36444 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 18:15:57 -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 1035172027 8613 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:47:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:47:07 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 20655 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 22:15:58 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 20650 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 22:15:57 -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 22:15:57 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 29782 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2001 22:16:19 -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 00:04:00 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 21 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36444 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36444 Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro=DFjohann) writes: > On 25 May 2001, Paul Jarc wrote: >> I see nothing in 2822 to suggest that Sender should indicate the >> host where a message originated. If you do, please point it out. >=20 > My idea of Rat's reasoning: Sender should be canonical, canonical > means login@fully.qualified.host.name. Qed. None of that is in the RFC, though, and violating it won't cause any problems in practice. Also note the difference between an address verified by software and one constructed by software. (I find this use of "canonical" rather odd, but we can ignore that.) > I doubt that he will quote chapter and verse Me, too. Which suggests that either there is indeed no such requirement, or that he doesn't care enough about Gnus getting it right to show us where it is. paul