whb@hoh-2.UUCP (Win Bent) (03/01/89)
Now that we Usenet readers are getting Sun Spots un-digestified, we are also getting it re-headerized, thus losing header information as to the origin of the posting. PLEASE, posters, SIGN YOUR POSTINGS!!! Recently, there were two postings: one implied that the information was an Official Sun Microsystems Statement (*), the other implied Authorship of Mathematica (**); neither had a signature. * Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 156, message 1 of 11 ** Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 156, message 7 of 11 My signature (of course :-) is the perfect example of what I'm looking for. Wilson H. Bent, Jr. ... att!hoh-2!whb (whb@hoh-2.ATT.COM) AT&T - Bell Laboratories (201) 888-7129 Disclaimer: My company has not authorized me to issue a disclaimer. [[ PLEASE NOTE: messages from individuals within Sun do not necessarily constitute an "Official Sun Microsystems Statement". It is a mistake to assume as such. Personally, I value the input this list receives from Sun engineers and technicians, but if everyone starts assuming that everything coming from Sun is "official", then Sun employees are going to be very reluctant to continue their contributions. As for messages in general: the "From:" address that I place in the messages is the "best effort" I can make at a real address of the sender as represented in the message header. If the original header had a "Reply-to" line and it is not obviously bogus, then I will use that address for "From:" Otherwise, I will compare the Berkeley "From" line and the "From:" line in the message header to see which looks better and use that. In extreme cases, I will resort to rebuilding the address from the "Received:" lines (or take it out of the message's signature). This is one reason that moderating takes time. V7n156 message 1 *was* from someone at Sun (see above comment). Nonetheless, signatures are a good idea. --wnl ]]