From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36407 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Kleinpaste Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 25 May 2001 07:50:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171997 8421 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:46:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:46:37 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: practical utility Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 11796 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 12:57:21 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 11791 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 12:57:19 -0000 Original-Received: from du203p44.icubed.com (HELO cinnamon.vanillaknot.com) (204.215.203.44) by gnus.org with SMTP; 25 May 2001 12:57:19 -0000 Original-Received: (from karl@localhost) by cinnamon.vanillaknot.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27039; Fri, 25 May 2001 07:50:43 -0400 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: ?=p^Gj2JkX~UU_@W}[q/'Dxn19x-zfIQ](y<&ky/?1-&Nz&,!W}R.Gp+"LeGojoR =RF>?!XVs{a:`Yt(gqM<#$Zy(C@]'dR4Hy4S1.I(n3:2"R:=Uy!)K9>U!gNTyH{p +_w#F[gt).$Vyvo5=9LF^PeQ(@H#}QLAbfyYxX/8t:TDR5nA\|RmJO"EwjL8tWyvM In-Reply-To: (Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "25 May 2001 11:19:26 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) XEmacs/21.4 (Developer-Friendly Unix APIs) Original-Lines: 30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36407 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36407 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.