Xref: utzoo news.software.b:1591 news.config:883
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: news.software.b,news.config
Subject: Re: Solution to news dup site names
Message-ID: <20729@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 25 Aug 88 17:41:08 GMT
References: <1445@datapg.MN.ORG> <20246@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <2530@plus5.UUCP> <1290@ficc.UUCP> <20673@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <281@hal.UUCP>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 66
Keywords:

In article <281@hal.UUCP> ane@hal.cwru.edu (Aydin "Bif" Edguer) writes:
>Bob, you didn't quite read Peter correctly I think.  

That's entirely possible.

>He said only put your full name if no one has.  Otherwise just use
>your short uucp name.

There are several problems with that: feasibility (for UUCP-only
sites) and cost (for name resolver-capable sites) to validate that
upstream name, and the fact that only one of our machines is
registered in the UUCP maps, though that with a short name.

> > But Path: lines aren't to be used for mail replies, only as an
> > audit trail ("Don't put that in your mouth, you don't where it's
> > been!" :-) to describe the path of the article.
>
>That is the only reason why this would be okay.  However, I don't
>completely agree that Path: lines are not used for mail replies.  If
>you have a smart mailer (smail w/pathalias) or a convenient smarthost
>(uunet) who has agreed to be your smarthost then Path: is an audit.
>In the default configuration though, Path: is used for mail replies,
>and thus MUST BE VALID.

I can only stand on the comments in section 2.1.6 of RFC 1036 (Horton
and Adams, December 1987) on the Path line.  To excerpt:

    This line shows the path the message took to reach the current
    system.
    ...
    The "Path" line is not used for replies, and should not be taken
    as a mailing address.  It is intended to show the route the
    message traveled to reach the local host.
    ... [though unfortunately] ...
    Special upward compatibility note: Since the "From", "Sender", and
    "Reply-To" lines are in Internet format, and since many USENET
    hosts do not yet have mailers capable of understanding Internet
    format, it would break the reply capability to completely sever
    the connection between the "Path" header and the reply function.
    [but still]
    It is recognized that the path is not always a valid reply string
    in older implementations, and no requirement to fix this problem
    is placed on implementations.

So, use of Path: instead of Reply: is described as a recognized and
tolerated thing that people out there tend to do, especially those
with older versions of the software.  Even those older versions may
not do it right to help each other.  Path: is used for replies in the
default configuration of 2.11 if you leave INTERNET undefined, but
there's no reason not to define INTERNET if you have LIBDIR/mailpaths
set up correctly.

Maintenance of valid mail links in the Path: line is encouraged, but
not required.  It's even common these days for the link not to exist
in a form usable for UUCP mail.  For example, your note, as it arrived
on our system, has a Path line like
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!ane, but there's no UUCP connection
between OSU and Case.  It came across NNTP.

Oh well, this is going on far too long and not really getting
anywhere.  It's sounding too much like a religious argument when
someone has to resort to excerpting quotations of scriptures :-)
-=-
									--Bob
YOW!!  What should the entire human race DO??  Consume a fifth
 of CHIVAS REGAL, ski NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and have a wild
 SEX WEEKEND!