Xref: utzoo news.admin:11598 comp.mail.misc:4612 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!news.miami.edu!mthvax!wb8foz From: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Bogus addresses Message-ID: <1990Dec25.190353.14831@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> Date: 25 Dec 90 19:03:53 GMT References: <1990Dec24.025350.26945@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> <2983@polari.UUCP> Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Distribution: na Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers Lines: 29 (Russ Nelson & David Daniel) and others followed up on my questions, but I don't seem to have made my point clear enough. but what is adding the Reply-To: errors? I see too many to think they are being done by hand. I know about the RNINIT variable. (nn lets you do the same. ) I also know that old versions of rn called everyone a .UUCP site, (in the From: line) EVEN IF THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED. My question is: Who/what is adding the bogus .UUCP Reply-To: headers? I'm hard pressed to believe that all those users out there are doing so one at a time. I see too many. Is there some piece of net software that is perpetuating the rn error, extended to the Reply-To: line, also? re: nobody@xxxxx.com >Oh, you mean kodak.com? [call a spade a spade.] I've been yelling at >their postmaster for months, or more correctly, telling Kodak users to >yell at their sysadmin. No change yet. My understanding, (secondhand, of course) is that the postmaster is doing this deliberately. I doubt yelling at such will do anything, hence my RFC question. On the other hand, I am a {very minor} stockholder. Maybe I should write to the CEO about this abuse of my earnings/share. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335