Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA
From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: "blaming Unix SendMail"
Message-ID: <491@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 16:31:17 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.491
Posted: Fri Apr 20 16:31:17 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Apr-84 02:32:32 EST
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 16
To: smoot@UT-SALLY.ARPA
Cc: Header-People@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "allegra!hou3c!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!smoot at mit-vax" of Fri 20 Apr 84 09:42:20-PST
Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)


     To answer smoot@UT-SALLY's defense of Sendmail, I should point
out that the TOPS-20 mailsystem (in particular, its MMailr module)
also operates in a heterogenous network mail environment.  MMailr
doesn't require gothic configuration files to do the right thing.

     I will confess that MMailr doesn't try to bridge between different
mail syntaxes.  user@host is a perfectly reasonable syntax to standardize
on, and I see no particular reason to encourage relative addressing
unless it is absolutely necessary.  What does
	foo!bar!rag!zowie
mean when host bar knows of TWO DIFFERENT machines called rag?  Can't
happen, you say?  Nonsense; it is a real problem between Internet and
several University LAN's right now.  In other words, relative addressing
is only safe to use in the cases where it is unnecessary!
-------