RS> There usually is enough. Normally the first line of the body
RS> of the message contains who wrote what is being replied to.

RS> It should be feasible to have a reader which has a phantom
RS> To: field which doesnt actually come from the header at
RS> all but has been extracted from the body of the message.

JT> Ok, my next question is, if there IS enough information in
JT> the public message as to who that message is intended for, the
JT> WHY didn't they already write this into the gating software?

BL> There isn't... I've been reading scads of
BL> messages. Some have To: information and some don't.

Poor old Bob, I wasnt talking about a To: field,
and those that are there in in the HEADER.

Here is the start of the BODY of a message which is basically a reply to me.

"rod speed"  wrote:
> Ashraf Ghebranious 
> wrote in article ...
>> rod speed wrote:
>>> Ashraf Ghebranious  wrote

Thats got a nested set which is the reply sequence over 4 messages.

BL> We need an extra line in the header.

Fat lot of use that is for messages coming
in over the net which wont use that Bob.

BL> The header is just text, and is ended by a blank line.

No news.

BL> Some messages then have a source which is probably derived
BL> from the header in the message to which they are replying...

It is indeed.

BL> but that may not be the person to whom you are sending the reply!

Pathetic really, its what goes in the phantom TO field dorko.

Poor old Bob.

BL> There is only one solution... we need to add a To: line and it has o
BL> be in the header.

JT> There is more than one gating package out there,
JT> ALL of them do the same, address the message to all.

BL> As I have since discovered. The UUCP format is flawed.

As is whats between Bobs ears. No news.
@EOT:

---