Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire!anagram
From: anagram@desire.wright.edu ((For Mongo))
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: AT&T replies
Message-ID: <1090.26d435eb@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 24 Aug 90 01:00:43 GMT
References: <1990Aug19.205508.16479@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> <1255@mtunq.ATT.COM> <7801@gollum.twg.com>
Distribution: na
Lines: 17

In article <7801@gollum.twg.com>, david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes:
> In article <1255@mtunq.ATT.COM> psrc@mtunq.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
>>I'm surprised the reply doesn't work.  Another way to answer Alex would
>>be to send e-mail to alex.g.bell@att.com;
> 
> Listen..  by putting out e-mail headers with addresses like that
> you are claiming to be able to handle mail addressed like so.

And so they can, usually.  This sounds like a classic case of computer error. 
Even the computers make mistakes sometimes.

> ergo-cum-quid cbnews.att.com is *BROKEN*
> 
Not really.  Gliched maybe, but not broken.  I've replied to many that way, and
never had a problem.

A