Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decuac.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!decuac!avolio From: avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <633@decuac.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:01:23 EDT Article-I.D.: decuac.633 Posted: Sat Sep 28 08:01:23 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 06:20:26 EDT References: <10361@ucbvax.ARPA> <3700008@ndm20> Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD Lines: 24 In article <3700008@ndm20>, tp@ndm20 writes: > Everyone proposing standard ways of doing things please repeat this > to yourself until you understands what it means! Every proposal that > has been made so far about the proper way to address and route mail > will require me to retire my mailer and run (and probably port > myself) something from elsewhere, and you people are talking about > changing the whole damn thing because of a bug in ONE version of > unix! I understand Terry's frustration. I would be too if it looked like with some wonderful "fix" that other's implement I'd be cut off from electronic mail. But no one will be or need be forced to change software. There are different levels of sophistication in mailers and all will be accommodated. For example, if your mailer can only handle explicite paths, then you juts use the explicite path if you have it -- nothing changes. Terry might see this address in the From_ line if I sent him mail smu!texsun!ut-sally!seismo!decuac.ATL.UUCP!avolio So your mailer can handle that. Just send it on to smu ... So nothing need change -- especially if it cannot -- at your site. Fred. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com