From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/10168
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Checking `Reply-To'
Date: 10 Mar 1997 18:38:33 -0500
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Message-ID: <wk913v1fnq.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>
References: <kig7mk11rrk.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>  <m2d8tkwlm2.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no> <snk7mjhkrdp.fsf@dna.bms.com> <m24tel6lur.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no> <wkohcsekoq.fsf@peorth.gweep.net> <m2g1y4jp90.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035150081 22764 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:41:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:41:21 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
	by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31651
	for <steve@miranova.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:05:12 -0800
Original-Received: from londo.prescienttech.com (londo.prescienttech.com [199.103.216.62]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <AAA16288@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:49:47 +0100
Original-Received: from gkar.asds.com (gkar.asds.com [111.17.19.1])
          by londo.prescienttech.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id SAA16412 for <ding@ifi.uio.no>; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:49:45 -0500
Original-Received: from peorth.gweep.net (peorth.asds.com [111.17.16.8])
          by gkar.asds.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id SAA31109 for <ding@ifi.uio.no>; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:49:44 -0500
Original-To: "(ding)" <ding@ifi.uio.no>
X-Attribution: Rat
In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 10 Mar 1997 06:21:47 +0100
Original-Lines: 27
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.25/Emacs 19.34
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10168
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10168

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "tGBGnB" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

tGBGnB> Yes -- but that's only useful in very limited circumstances.  The
tGBGnB> user wanted to add a Reply-To header that he seemed to want to have
tGBGnB> the same contents as his From header.

I guess I missed that, or I figured that he knew what he was doing.

If so, then the Reply-To is both redundant and incorrect.  Like Sender, it
should only exist when the mailbox is different from the From header.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: cp850

iQCVAwUBMySbdp6VRH7BJMxHAQGFfgQAsXrqFIoD16NA6zABS+IBV1JAwo4KUzbG
nxUVwE1ORddfxvUuShEb6M5x1XH7RFRdljzUtf93nJo5CoNh8zvrHbOf3fYllFdp
bbHcTFIX2pgNlgdZEqr9sH7WQJzZiQo2BjRoa9+p9hMHGJTuIiV1GRTgPOLJzauT
fSfquUAH3go=
=xe3u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
                                    \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.