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 ----------