From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36448 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stainless Steel Rat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 26 May 2001 01:09:01 -0400 Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade 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> <01May25.160823edt.115290@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 1035172030 8639 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:47:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 23710 invoked by alias); 26 May 2001 05:09:03 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 23705 invoked from network); 26 May 2001 05:09:02 -0000 Original-Received: from h0060978d8c91.ne.mediaone.net (HELO peorth.gweep.net) (ratinox@24.147.75.115) by gnus.org with SMTP; 26 May 2001 05:09:02 -0000 Original-Received: (from ratinox@localhost) by peorth.gweep.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01307; Sat, 26 May 2001 01:09:01 -0400 Original-To: "(ding)" X-Attribution: Rat In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) Original-Lines: 26 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36448 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36448 * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | The fact that it can be done outside of Gnus doesn't alone make a good | case that it shouldn't also be possible to do it within Gnus. Not all | MTAs may have such features. Any MTA that cannot do header rewriting has no business playing mail gateway for a firewalled site. The other side of that is if your MTA is configured to do all the rewriting, you can use *any* MUA you want and everything, not just Gnus, will just work, right out of the box. Making all this transparent to the end users is a Good Thing(tm). [...] | RFC 1034 doesn't use the term "fully qualified", but it does use | "absolute" and "relative". [...] The point of bringing up RFC 1034's less than precise language is...? Within the context of mail and news, the root-level dot is understood to be there even if it is not actually there. I really don't see the point of this digression. -- Rat \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \