Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!ptt.lcs.mit.edu!markl
From: markl@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.emacs,comp.mail.headers,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Re: GNU Emacs vs. sendmail - battle of the titans
Message-ID: <8712040000.AA05718@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 3-Dec-87 19:00:19 EST
Article-I.D.: PTT.8712040000.AA05718
Posted: Thu Dec  3 19:00:19 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Dec-87 06:39:35 EST
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: markl@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU
Lines: 29
Xref: mnetor comp.emacs:2494 comp.mail.headers:229 comp.unix.wizards:5783
To: nntp-poster@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU

In-Reply-To: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP's message of 1 Dec 87 16:21:47 GMT

Repository: PTT

Originating-Client: thyme



   From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
   Keywords: GNU Emacs, sendmail
   Date: 1 Dec 87 16:21:47 GMT
   Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
   Distribution: na

   One of the other burning questions is, should the "Reply-to:" field
   override all others and be used instead of any from field. That would
   solve your problem, if only everybody's mailers did the same thing.
   -- 
	   bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
     {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
   "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

Depends on whose brand of standard you like.  If you follow the
Internet RFC-822 standard, there is a specific hierarchy of fields to
reply to.  It is, in priority order, "reply-to:", followed by "from:",
followed by "sender:" (if present).  

markl

Internet: markl@ptt.lcs.mit.edu

Mark L. Lambert
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distributed Systems Group

----------