Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Who pays the bill? Message-ID: Date: 2 Aug 90 14:52:06 GMT References: <1990Aug1.201232.23136@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1990Aug1.230858.3264@iwarp.intel.com> <1990Aug2.012444.22770@mlb.semi.harris.com> Sender: usenet@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 23 In-Reply-To: del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com's message of 2 Aug 90 01:24:44 GMT In article <1990Aug2.012444.22770@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: It looks like it is time to update the RFC to discourage the use of Path:... There's no need for an update, it's already there. See RFC1036 section 2.1.6, paragraph 4, first sentence; or RFC850 (its predecessor), section 2.1.8, paragraph 3, first sentence: "The "Path" line is not used for replies, and should not be taken as a mailing address." ...and update the newsreaders to do something sensible with the From: and Reply-To: headers for sites with brain dead mailers. There's no need for an update, it's already been done. As far as I know, the current versions of all the news and mail software in common use are conformant with the relevant standards. The problem is that some folks use old stuff and have been doing so for a very long time - RFC850 is dated June 1983. That doesn't mean they should be coddled. Anyone who's been nonconformant for over seven years likely has enough momentum to continue that way indefinitely. And they're only hurting themselves when they can't mail replies back to authors.