Article View: comp.mail.misc
Article #1418Re: user's aliases on the To: line (was: UUnet and munging headers.)
From: Craig_Everhart
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 1990 16:31
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 1990 16:31
23 lines
1410 bytes
1410 bytes
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.misc: 16-Jul-90 Re: user's aliases on > the T.. Tom Neff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (2587) > Hey, there are 1.0E+6 mail user agents out there. It's not my fault if > some particular program (to which source is presumably available) chooses > to let the user choose between "From:" and "To:" but not between "From:" > and "Reply-To:". Patch the program or switch. RFC 822 says that replies-to-sender go to Reply-to:, not From: (unless Reply-to: is absent). Look it up--section 4.4.4. > If Reply-To: already contains the list address in replyable form, why > does the To: field need to hold the identical contents. I've already argued that putting the list-submission address in Reply-to: is a silly idea. What you're doing is crowbarring the To: field to make it unusable, which is not playing the game. RFC 822's syntax for the To: field, as transmitted on the wire, doesn't admit the form that omits the ``@'' and domain name. Craig
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<cacnpG70BwwOE3P2RN@transarc.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!TRANSARC.COM!Craig_EverhartReferences:
<15671@bfmny0.BFM.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!TRANSARC.COM!Craig_Everhart From: Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: user's aliases on the To: line (was: UUnet and munging headers.) Message-ID: <cacnpG70BwwOE3P2RN@transarc.com> Date: 17 Jul 90 16:31:14 GMT References: <15671@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: usa Lines: 23