Re: Sender header?

[Karl Kleinpaste <karl@charcoal.com>]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> This is what I currently use.  However, it does not automatically add
> a Sender header if I have manually modified the From header.

That was merely my (too subtle?) expression of an attitude about the
actual, real-life, practical utility of Sender.

I crawled through my archives for a little while last night, looking
for when I last generated Sender with any regularity.  It seems to
have been early 1995 or so.  And evidently I've generated on the order
of 25,000 messages with Gnus since that time.  Never once in 6 full
years of busy net.activity have I had actual trouble befall me from
having left Sender out.  Thus, I conclude that, RFCs be damned
regardless of their conflicting instructions, the practical utility of
Sender is on a par with the practical utility of Resent-From, i.e.,
none at all.

To and Cc have practical utility.  Subject and Xref have practical
utility.  Keywords has enough practical utility to me personally that
I auto-generate it where it doesn't exist.  But Sender doesn't do
anything for anybody, as a practical matter.  We have argued over the
semantics of Sender for years, and evidently even now have never
gotten it quite right (else the argument wouldn't have resumed now),
and yet I've found that just *not generating it* is the simplest
practical solution with no evident negative effects.

You folks go ahead and argue once again over Sender.  I'll continue to
keep Sender disabled.  And I won't have any problems, regardless of
the conclusions reached by, as well as the code modifications that
result from, the resumption of the Sender argument.