Subj : Re: NNTP and To: field
To : All
From : Carlos Navarro
Date : Sun Nov 09 2025 01:51 pm
06/11/2025 23:40, Accession (1:103/705):
> >> I think what he was saying, is that even when there /is/ a recipient
> >> (doesn't just about every 'reply' message have a recipient?), it
> >> still uses "All" (and I don't disagree that is indeed how NNTP has
> >> always worked).
>
> > No, not all USENET replies have a recipient.
> Correct, however /this/ (as in what I'm fairly certain we're discussing)
> isn't USENET. We're using NNTP to access our message bases (which may or
> may not actually carry USENET). I think this conversation was much more
> pointing towards BBS/FTN messages. Most local and FTN messages
> (particularly replies) on a BBS usually have a recipient (do they not?),
> unless it's specifically sent to "All".
>
> > X-Comment-to is not a requirement or universally used.
>
> You're right. However, in the hobby we are involved in, it makes the
> normal "To" and "From" fields look like everyone elses that aren't using
> NNTP. I also wasn't stating that Synchronet needed to do that, I was
> just mentioning that's how I got around all of my messages posted with a
> newsreader being addressed to "All".
>
> What (I think?) the question from the OP was, was asking why /all/
> messages are addressed to "All" when it seems like there's something
> already in the code that is looking for a recipient it could be filling
> the "To" field with on a reply?
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks, Nick.
This is a reply to a message from Accession in the SYNCHRONET echomail
area, sent via Thunderbird on the NNTP server of a Synchronet-based BBS.
The message will likely be posted to the echo with recipient "To: All"
instead of "To: Accession"
