From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/10199
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Sudish Joseph <sj@eng.mindspring.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Checking `Reply-To'
Date: 11 Mar 1997 20:05:44 -0500
Sender: sj@atreides.eng.mindspring.net
Message-ID: <yviad8t5q5qb.fsf@atreides.eng.mindspring.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> <oqwwrff94h.fsf@icule.progiciels-bpi.ca> <rjsp22qyx0.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk> <wk4teis6qr.fsf@peorth.gweep.net> <rjk9neiapq.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk> <wk3eu2aw96.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035150109 23026 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:41:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:41:49 +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 RAA03761
	for <steve@miranova.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:23:41 -0800
Original-Received: from atreides.eng.mindspring.net (atreides.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.183.11]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <CAA17729@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 02:06:36 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 31772 invoked by uid 52477); 12 Mar 1997 01:06:04 -0000
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of 11 Mar 1997 17:39:49 -0500
Original-Lines: 21
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.25/XEmacs 20.1
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10199
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10199

Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> If the mailbox specified in the From header does not point back to the
> originating host or originating site's mailhub, then the address is not
> canonical as far as RFC-822 is concerned.

RFC 822 has no such restrictions.  It's only suggestions are
wrt. default entries, entries generated by *machines* when the user
has /no particular preference/.  In this latter case, it says From:
should contain what Sender: would otherwise.

The contents of From: are entirely up to the user.  There is no
concept of "canonical" identity in 822.  

822bis includes a "SHOULD NOT" regarding the gratuitous use of
Reply-To:.  It also snips the "typical uses" statements that are
interpreted by some as law in the description of Reply-To.

More interestingly, 822bis promotes the usage of References: for
threading.  Yay.

-Sudish