Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Headers that sendmail can write Message-ID: <75110372@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 31 Dec 90 02:57:59 GMT References: <1990Dec29.055025.18931@sceard.Sceard.COM> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Lines: 26 In article karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM writes: > How's about the writing of headers like > Received: from foo.UUCP by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP > when foo was really foo.bar.com. And said so. And the transport was UUCP. > >At the level of UUCP transport, a machine identifies itself with a >one-word hostname. That is, UUCP host "foo" did not in fact identify >itself _during_rmail_execution_ as "foo.bar.com," but rather as just >plain old "foo." ... > At that level, a Received: showing "foo.UUCP" is right. But why tack on the content free ".UUCP" pseudo-domain? Why shouldn't it simply say Received: from foo by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP I confess to being somewhat irked at the MEANINGLESS proliferation of the UUCP pseudo-domain all over the place. It was never more than a bit of routing sleight-of-hand for Internet purposes, and shouldn't be used where it doesn't apply. (And DEFINITELY not where a site isn't actually registered in the Zone.) -- What luck for rulers that men []+ Tom Neff do not think. -- A. Hitler +[] tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM