Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!kksys!orbit!marilyn!shawn From: shawn@marilyn.UUCP (Shawn P. Stanley) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: internet/uucp mail Message-ID: <112@marilyn.UUCP> Date: 24 Nov 90 07:40:57 GMT References: <659186205.1594@proa.sv.dg.com> <100@marilyn.UUCP> Reply-To: shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org (Shawn P. Stanley) Organization: Litfal Lines: 59 In article karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >The old religious war begins again... I believe you misunderstood my problem. Maybe you could re-read my message and pick up my problem points; I need a solution, not a firm belief that nothing is wrong. >"addr3!addr2!spam@addr1.com" is a perfectly legitimate address. It is >of a form that an Internet host would prefer to see. I can agree to that; no problem. >If you're running a system with a Seriously Stupid Mailer (SSM), e.g., >all you've got is /bin/mail as a transport, and mailx calls it >directly, then you shouldn't be set up to be replying to From: or >Reply-To: lines in the first place. Such SSM configurations can only >be depended upon to understand the UNIX From_ line. Maybe implication wasn't enough. I'm not using a "SSM", unless you call Elm a SSM. I implied I have control over how my software can interpret headers, and so I do. >The From_ line will almost certainly contain nothing but a pure !-path, >and in the case of your example above, it will probably look something like > From your-uucp-relay-host!addr1.com!addr3!addr2!spam >or some minor variation on that theme. Your SSM can reply to that >just fine. As I explained, it can't. There is at least one site in the address that can get toward me but not backward from me. For instance, a message can get to me from "addr1!sialis!pwcstoo!addr2...", but when sent back along that path, pwcstoo informs me it can't send to addr2. >Blind prepending of intermediate sitenames in the From: line is widely >viewed as bogus behavior. Site prepending belongs in the From_ line >where SSMs need it, and no one else needs to bother with it. >No, a From: line is not at all guaranteed to be a return path, and it >was never intended as such. Nor should it be a transmittal route. It >should be an _address_, that is, an indication of _who_ you're trying >to reach, not _how_ you're trying to reach them. Okay. >It is unreasonable and insulting to expect the writer of a letter to >have to provide indications to the postal system workforce for how to >get mail from Hither to Yon. Is that what I said? I don't believe so. I didn't realize the "From:" line was considered an unchangable part of the message, but now I do. What I WISH is that the sites along the way would take care of how I can get back to the author. But even that may seem unreasonable. And it probably is. Sigh... I guess I'm going to have to somehow start handling maps, eh? Or write myself some software to handle the specific cases that bother me the most. -- Shawn P. Stanley shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org bungia!marilyn!shawn {rosevax,crash}!orbit!marilyn!shawn