Re: Sender header?

[Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)]

On Thu, 24 May 2001, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> The correct question is, what breaks the Sender field does not
> canonically identify the sender?  The answer is, if the Sender field
> does not contain the canonical mailbox of the sender and there is a
> problem, perhaps with that machine, I may be unable to contact the
> sender.

If the Sender field contains the FQDN of the host, and the machine is
turned off, you're screwed.  So maybe it is better to give a domain
part in the address which identifies a host which is sure to be on?
Maybe this is the case in my situation?  How can you know?  How can
Gnus know?

Why do you want to forbid me from putting there an address which I
know to work better than user@FQDN?

> You see, Sender is for human consumption only.  It exists at least
> partially so that humans, like me, can track down problems at their
> source.  If the Sender field does not include the FQDN of the
> sending host it makes finding and solving problems that much more
> difficult.

Reall?  What is the FQDN needed for?  The address should specify a
mailbox, and knowing about host names is not necessary for specifying
mailboxes.

kai
-- 
~/.signature: No such file or directory