Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA17424; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.9); Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:19:43 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA17384; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA17371; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 11539 invoked by uid 666); 7 Apr 1998 05:21:38 -0000 Date: 7 Apr 1998 05:21:38 -0000 Message-ID: <19980407052138.11537.qmail@cr.yp.to> From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Reply-To issue list Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu References: Uzi Paz writes: > On Usenet I have seen more inappropriate than appropriate setting of > Followup-To header field (excluding cases where it is set by moderators), I just looked at 190 examples of Followup-To in my archives. 187 of them were obviously sensible; I'm not sure about the other three. None were set by moderators. ---Dan Smaller, faster, safer than inetd+tcpd. http://pobox.com/~djb/ucspi-tcp.html