Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge
From: coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Unofficial Re^n Patch for B News 2.11
Message-ID: <1989Sep17.223127.20182@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 89 22:31:27 GMT
References: <14665@bfmny0.UU.NET> <7120@ki4pv.uucp> <1989Sep17.175525.661@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <526@ariel.unm.edu>
Sender: news@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Lines: 26

sfreed@tesla.unm.edu (Steve Freed) writes:
>coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes:
>>If the subject line is
>>not RFC compliant (and it really isn't, since Re: isn't used to lead the
>>Subject: line), sending mail to the sender is probably the Right Thing
>>to do, since they definitely have broken software.
>[...]If you are going to write anybody, then write the systems
>administrator or at least someone who can actually do something
>about it. The poor user will probably have no idea what you are talking
>about.

That's really what I meant. However, the basic point remains: don't
drop messages and don't rewrite headers, but rather inform the people
writing bad headers of the problem. Response mail of this sort probably
should go to usenet@site or postmaster@site, at least until mail to those
things fails. Mail to the original poster should be a last resort type
of thing. On the other hand, the original poster *should* know who to
yell at to get buggy software fixed...

--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Coolidge     Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge
Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself)
Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.