From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/32963
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To
Date: 25 Oct 2000 14:27:30 +0200
Organization: The Church of Emacs
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID: <rj66mht8b1.fsf@ssv2.dina.kvl.dk>
References: <m37l6zcm7w.fsf@multivac.student.cwru.edu>
	<vafk8ay5zy1.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<rj66miv25r.fsf@ssv2.dina.kvl.dk>
	<m34s21ama1.fsf@multivac.student.cwru.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035169157 22693 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:59:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:59:17 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu>
Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FE6D049A
	for <jason@mastaler.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5])
	by spinoza.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAB13900;
	Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:34:30 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:12:59 -0500 (CDT)
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 HAA01004
	for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:12:46 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from sheridan.dina.kvl.dk (sheridan.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.227])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3594ED049A
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:13:12 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from ssv2.dina.kvl.dk (ssv2.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.226])
	by sheridan.dina.kvl.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id OAA23986;
	Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:13:10 +0200
Original-Received: from abraham by ssv2.dina.kvl.dk with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 13oPeU-00061o-00; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:27:30 +0200
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
X-Face: +kRV2]2q}lixHkE{U)mY#+6]{AH=yN~S9@IFiOa@X6?GM<U{B+4e{k79.Ya{~':DblFPCg$
 @60,BfLv2@SKZ19cMWK0/C'v;tM:|6B'R}U1rp6CL&kN({9<zF/V{:JCg27yC)9oZjeqcQawzKfiNL
 t9}`vjmK["dRQC/qGFQq"%u|Q`:6{"Rz}b(dnl_"3$Jtqimi>|8MBp/
In-Reply-To: <m34s21ama1.fsf@multivac.student.cwru.edu>
Original-Lines: 16
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32963
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32963

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> > I don't think it would be hard to teach message.el to obey the two
> > headers.  It could also generate the two headers based on group
> > parameters.  If "broken-reply-to" is set, generate "mail-reply-to".
> 
> Is broken-reply-to currently used for anything?  I wonder if this
> should be handled separately.

Yes, it mean ignore the "Reply-to" field for messages in this folder.
It is intended for mailing lists who insert the list address in the
reply-to field.  Which happen to be the exact same lists where is
makes sense to create a Mail-Reply_to header.

So I don't think these should be handled separately.