Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!unmvax.cs.unm.edu!mike
From: mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Replying to mail... is there a general theory?
Message-ID: <207@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 89 20:33:46 GMT
References: <3483@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@unmvax.unm.edu
Reply-To: mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell)
Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Lines: 34

In article <3483@portia.Stanford.EDU> joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>
>	I would like to set up a system whereby mailing to a special
>address ("anisotropy@hanauma.stanford.edu") automatically sends back
>a reply giving some standard information (a list of e-mail addresses
>of people working in anisotropy).
>	My question is: what's the best way to get a return address
>out of a message? It seems that I should use either the address on
>the "From" or "From:" lines, but which is correct? Neither works all
>the time. Here are some samples:

Actually, you should use, in order of preference, the following:
  Reply-To:
  From:
  Sender:

For mail to arrive without a From: at all is an error, but I've seen it...
it's wise to use Sender: if there isn't a From:.

You should NEVER use the From_ line unless something is really wrong and
none of the above three works.

Once you've selected the correct field, do the following:
  Drop everything in parentheses (they nest)
  If there are <> in what's left, take what's inside the <>
  Else, take whatever's left.

That will work.  Honest.  You NEVER need the From_ line.  My MUA just
dumps them on the floor.

   Michael I. Bushnell       \     This above all; to thine own self be true
     Silence == Death         \    And it must follow, as the night the day,
  mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu      /\   Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001   /  \  Farewell:  my blessing season this in thee!