Path: utzoo!utstat!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes!wisner From: wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Pnews causes inews to reject .signatures Message-ID: <1990Feb12.202553.12619@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> Date: 12 Feb 90 20:25:53 GMT References: <4331@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <2126@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Sender: usenet@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (news 'R' us) Reply-To: wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) Organization: The Wisner Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Lines: 21 In-Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) In article <2126@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1 (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > Sorry, the From: and Reply-To: lines are not always the same for >several reasons. A user may elect to have mail go to a personal machine, >for instance, and many mail systems feel free to rewrite the From: line >but leave the Reply-To: alone. You're missing the point ENTIRELY. If you want to insert a Reply-To: header so that mail gets directed to the right place, that's just dandy. But why, WHY, should the news software automatically generate a Reply-To: header that is *identical* to the From: header? Utter brain death. Larry Wall must have been having a bad day. When you have two headers that contain exactly the same information, ONE MUST GO. It is true that mailers are known to rewrite From: lines (although no mailer should *ever* rewrite any From: line with a fully qualified domain name, Yea, Verily and Forsooth, praise SMTP!) but I defy you to name one USENET site that does. Bill Wisner Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775