Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!shelby!portia!forel!karish From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: how to fix rn return addresses Message-ID: <3045@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 19 Jun 89 22:06:23 GMT References: <7912@saturn.ucsc.edu> <2903@portia.Stanford.EDU> <11939@s.ms.uky.edu> Sender: USENET News System Reply-To: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Organization: When necessary Lines: 28 In article <11939@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) wrote: >In article <2903@portia.Stanford.EDU> karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >>Not acceptable for NNTP-only leaf nodes, like the one I'm typing >>to now (forel.stanford.edu). Mail to karish@portia.stanford.edu is >>guaranteed to bounce. >That's silly. It's ridiculously easy to install MX records into your >pointing to a machine which can handle mail. Then, once you've done >that, it's a little bit harder to teach that machine which hosts it >handles mail for. But once you figure out how to do that with sendmail >(it's rather *easy* with MMDF) you're in business. Mail to portia.stanford.edu >will end up on a mail-serving machine. My original comment WAS silly, for the reason that Bill Wisner already pointed out. As for mail forwarding, the way to fix that would be to install an alias on portia.stanford.edu. If portia's administrative staff took on the task of maintaining proper addresses for all the thousands of people who might post news from any of the hundreds of workstations that might get an NNTP feed from portia at one time or another, they wouldn't have time left to support educational users of their machine. Forel handles mail just fine. That's why I want its name to be in my return address. Chuck Karish {decwrl,hpda}!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu