Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!mlb.semi.harris.com!thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com!del From: del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Who pays the bill? Message-ID: <1990Aug2.012444.22770@mlb.semi.harris.com> Date: 2 Aug 90 01:24:44 GMT References: <1990Aug1.201232.23136@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1990Aug1.230858.3264@iwarp.intel.com> Sender: news@mlb.semi.harris.com Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL Lines: 27 In article emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >The RFC (1036) sez [ deleted ] >but also > > Special upward compatibility note: Since the "From", "Sender", and > "Reply-To" lines are in Internet format, and since many USENET hosts > do not yet have mailers capable of understanding Internet format, it > would break the reply capability to completely sever the connection > between the "Path" header and the reply function. It is recognized > that the path is not always a valid reply string in older > implementations, and no requirement to fix this problem is placed on > implementations. However, the existing convention of placing the > host name and an "!" at the front of the path, and of starting the > path with the host name, an "!", and the user name, should be > maintained when possible. If the author of the article uses the Reply-To: header for whatever reason, then reples sent back along the Path: are going to end up in the wrong place anyway. It looks like it is time to update the RFC to discourage the use of Path: and update the newsreaders to do something sensible with the From: and Reply-To: headers for sites with brain dead mailers. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901