🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7489@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes:
 ...
>RFC-822 describes groups as so:
 ...
>            From:     George Jones <Jones@Host.Net>
>            Sender:   Jones@Host
>            Reply-To: The Committee: Jones@Host.Net,
>                                     Smith@Other.Org,
>                                     Doe@Somewhere-Else;
>
>Elsewhere it says that the list need not be present.  
>
>In other words..  this group:; format is meant for the exact situation
>which the "alias" in mush and/or ucbmail covers.

But this appears useless for real net-wide mailing lists.  First of all
the To:  line is not specified in the above example, which was the
original point of this thread.  Secondly, if you omit the list of
addresses in the Reply-To:  header above, as the standard appears to
allow, then you don't have anything a recipient user can actually reply
to!  Group names are not FQDN's, and others' machines cannot be expected
to have the right alias for "The Committee:".

I have hundreds of users on my lists, including UUCP, Internet, BITNET,
MILNET, EARNET, MCI Mail, CompuServe and elsewhere.  This is what I do:

	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)

That (plus date and message-id) is the header.  Then in the envelope
(implemented as an 'rmail' command) I list all the individual addressees:

	rmail fred@schmoo.bitnet blah!blit!bloop alma@frat.quayle.edu ...

My usual mail feed has a 2K limit on uux commands, so I split up the
envelope list as needed and make multiple submissions.

Now I don't know if this satisfies all the theoretical gurus, but it WORKS.
-- 
A doubled signature is the devil's work. ** Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
-- 
A doubled signature is the devil's work. ** Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM>