Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!TRANSARC.COM!Craig_Everhart
From: Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush
Subject: Re: user's aliases on the To: line (was: UUnet and munging headers.)
Message-ID: <IaWARvH0BwwOAI9o1Q@transarc.com>
Date: 27 Jun 90 14:49:31 GMT
References: <15611@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 37

> Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.misc: 26-Jun-90 Re: user's aliases on
> the T.. Tom Neff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (307)

> But what about the To: line as seen by RECIPIENTS of a mailing list?

There are lots of formats in use.  Ones distributed with AMDS can have the form
    To: +dist+/this/is/a/dist/list/file@do.main.name
or, if the dist list is published, whatever its alias is:
    To: my-foobar-list@do.main.name
These are all reply-able addresses, in that you could send mail to
either of them @do.main.name, and the mail would be redistributed.

> No list I've ever subscribed to sends me mail with headers like
> 	To: Pederasty-Enthusiasts:;@BISHOP.EDU

Note that this is in fact illegal; the correct form omits the domain
name, so it's
    To: Pederasty-Enthusiasts:;
This form is intentionally(?) opaque: you can't send mail to it and have
it redistributed.  If there were any recipients listed, they'd
individually have domain names, so the result could look like
    To: Pederasty-Enthusiasts: joe@foo, jane@bar, jack@hill;
I once maintained a mail UA that would abbreviate such lists, no matter
how long, for header typeout as
    To: Pederasty-Enthusiasts:
which all of its users found pretty convenient at the time.

> instead it usually looks like

> 	To: Multiple recipients of list PEDERAST-L <PEDERAST-L@BISHOP.EDU>

There's nothing wrong with this address, either.  RFC822 says it's OK:
the text outside the <> address doesn't have to be a person name.  And
it's replyable, in that mail sent to that address will be redistributed
to the list.

		Craig