Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!wilhite
From: wilhite@seas.gwu.edu (Robert Wilhite)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: "bounce" vs "forward"
Message-ID: <3092@sparko.gwu.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 91 11:48:24 GMT
Reply-To: wilhite@seas.gwu.edu ()
Distribution: na
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
Lines: 18

At our office, we have one person (a point-man, of sorts) who sifts
through the root mailbox and "bounces" messages to the appropriate
recipients.  The hitch is that the "bounce" function leaves no clues
in the header telling who the message was originally from, so unless
there's a signature on the note, it's often hard to know who to reply
to.  The "forward" function, of course, includes whatever portion of
the original you choose to retain, so that's what our point-man uses.

Was it intentional that the "bounce" command eliminate all header info
referring to the original author (i.e., to make it appear that the
"bouncer" is the original author)?  If not, would it be difficult to
have the "bounce" code create a "Reply-To:" or "X-Author:" in the header?

(All the same, I find elm [2.3 PL11] to be very handy.  Kudos to DT
for getting it started, and to Syd et al for keeping it going.)

-- 
Robert (wilhite@seas.gwu.edu)