Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <15696@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 24 Jul 90 09:53:03 GMT References: <26A4DCA7.16B1@intercon.com> <26A76773.3660@intercon.com> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Lines: 18 In article <26A76773.3660@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >Ideally, in my opinion, the transport-level destination should just be a >copy of the RFC822 "To:" address, but that is currently impractical given >the number of RFC822-ignorant UUCP sites out in the world. This I regard >as an opportunity for improvement :-). This might be ideal for single user communications, but is not really practical for mailing lists. There may be dozens of destination addresses in a single transport request, while the RFC822 "To:" header in the message itself specifies only the list address. It would be awkward and obnoxious to list every individual recipient in the To: field. It would also be a waste of bandwidth to duplicate this information. (The alternative, to require a separate transport event for each recipient's copy of a mailing list issue, is even worse!) -- 'We have luck only with women -- not spacecraft!' \\ Tom Neff -- R. Kremnev, builder of failed Soviet FOBOS probes // tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM