Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: New Host-Requirement RFCs Message-ID: Date: 30 Oct 89 01:33:17 GMT References: <1989Oct27.212939.11277@agate.berkeley.edu> <89Oct27.235825edt.2687@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <1514@intercon.com> <1989Oct29.040104.17081@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY Lines: 25 In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp's message of 29 Oct 89 04:01:04 GMT In article <1989Oct29.040104.17081@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: In article <1514@intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >... If you want to use source routing, that means that you know >more about delivering mail than your mail gateway. This shows that your >mail gateway is Really And Truly Broken, not that you need to use %s. No, it merely means that you know more than your gateway. [ and Henry goes on to argue for % for pragmatic reasons.] But Henry, some of the local E-mail users have very few clues on how to force mail past Broken gateways. They are all PhDs and are used to solving their own problems. If they can't solve the problem themselves, they figure that it must be unsolvable[1]. Telling people to use % doesn't work for me because I never get asked. I suspect that the same applies to most people who have to support PhDs. These PhDs would be better served by working software. [1] I am not willing to argue these two sentences. They are true in *my* experience, and that is all I am asserting. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee. A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.