Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wrdis01!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!silvert
From: silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: "bounce" vs "forward"
Summary: There is a problem after all
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.215939.11226@cs.dal.ca>
Date: 23 Apr 91 21:59:39 GMT
References: <3092@sparko.gwu.edu> <1991Apr22.142212.23250@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>
Sender: silvert@cs.dal.ca.UUCP (Bill Silvert)
Reply-To: silvert%biome@cs.dal.ca
Distribution: na
Organization: Habitat Ecology Div., Bedford Inst. of Oceanography
Lines: 25

In article <1991Apr22.142212.23250@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>wilhite@seas.gwu.edu () wrote:
>>At our office, we have one person (a point-man, of sorts) who sifts
>>through the root mailbox and "bounces" messages to the appropriate
>>recipients.  The hitch is that the "bounce" function leaves no clues
>>in the header telling who the message was originally from, so unless
>>there's a signature on the note, it's often hard to know who to reply
>>to.
>
>Don't you have this backwards? The bounce command leaves little trace
>of who the *bouncer* is, and makes it appear that the letter was sent
>by the original author.

Unfortunately Wilhite has a real problem.  I've checked this on three
machines, and on one of them bounced mail appears to come from the
bouncer, not from the bouncee.  The machines have the same
configuration and run 2.3 PL 11.  I sent on what info I could, but it
seems like a wierd problem!


-- 
William Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division, Bedford Inst. of Oceanography
P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2.  Tel. (902)426-1577
UUCP=..!{uunet|watmath}!dalcs!biome!silvert
BITNET=silvert%biome%dalcs@dalac	InterNet=silvert%biome@cs.dal.ca