[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)

To: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
Subject: Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: 22 Nov 1996 13:27:17 +0100
Cc: Peter Ziobrzynski <pzi@netmediatech.com>, Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>, zmailer@nic.funet.fi
Fake-Sender: agulbra@troll.no
In-Reply-To: Tom Samplonius's message of Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Organization: 42
References: <Pine.NEB.3.94.961121221134.4273B-100000@misery.sdf.com>
Sender: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>


Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
>   The somewhat non-standard "Delivered-To:" that Qmail uses would be
> useful for this.  Qmail adds a "Delivered-To:" to all mail, not just to
> mail without a To:, Cc:, or Bcc.  It is interesting idea.

So to send mail to dynamically generated list of 333 people without
burdening them with each others names, I should have to say
"Delivered-To: dialin-users:;" well as "To: dialin-users:;"?

Wouldn't that simply be an arms race?

--Arnt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
  - From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> (Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:02:52 +0200)

References:
- Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
  - From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>

Prev by Date: Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
Next by Date: Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
Prev by thread: Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
Next by thread: Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread