🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19900706145229.8.7THSON@GLOWWORM.LispM.SLCS.SLB.COM> 7thSon@SLCS.SLB.COM (Chris Garrigues) writes:
>[I showed my sample header:]
>>	From: Joe Contributor <joeblow@imelda.street.edu>
>>	Sender: LEPROSY-REQUEST@bfmny0.BFM.COM
>>	Errors-To: LEPROSY-REQUEST@bfmny0.BFM.COM
>>	Reply-To: LEPROSY@bfmny0.BFM.COM
>>	To: LEPROSY (Hansens Disease Interest Group)
>     
>The right thing to do in this case is:
>
>    From: Joe Contributor <joeblow@imelda.street.edu>
>    Sender: LEPROSY-REQUEST@bfmny0.BFM.COM
>    Errors-To: LEPROSY-REQUEST@bfmny0.BFM.COM
>    To: LEPROSY@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Hansens Disease Interest Group)
>
>Your version works, but it really it is one more line than necessary.

I add the "Reply-To: list@address" line so that subscribers' mailers will
tend to send R[eplies] back to the entire list by default, rather than
only to the original contributor, which seems to be what happens if only
the "From: Joe Contributor" line is present.

>Besides, didn't the original sender provide a TO line that looked like
>"LEPROSY@bfmny0.BFM.COM" anyway?

Yes -- it routed the contribution to my forwarding agent in the first
place.  But once I've forwarded it out to the whole list, I don't want
it looping BACK to me by accident, as seemed to happen every so often
courtesy of someone's homicidal mailer.  So I omit the FQDN from the To:
line.  It serves no purpose there anyway -- the origin fields are the
ones that need to be replyable.



-- 
Canada -- a few acres of snow.    ^v^v^    Tom Neff
                 -- Voltaire      v^v^v    tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM