Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!mouse From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: host!user@sun.com (was smail wants you to register a domain) Message-ID: <1289@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Date: 7 Sep 88 07:49:30 GMT References: <70@volition.dec.com> <71@volition.dec.com> <12307@ncoast.UUCP> <3053@utastro.UUCP> Organization: McGill University, Montreal Lines: 64 In article <3053@utastro.UUCP>, werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > In article <12307@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >> As quoted from <71@volition.dec.com> by vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): >>> (and unless certain sites stop rewriting into >>> on UUCP pass-though mail). >> [Sun horror story] >> I suspect the folks at sun just don't give a d*mn what their mail >> system does, as long as it works over their Internet connections. > I'm getting a bit tired of this bashing of SUN by Paul and others and > I wonder if they care to present a "fair" picture of the problems. > So, for what it's worth, here are my 2 cents worth ... > 1) SUN.COM does an incredibly valuable service to [the UUCP world] by > functioning as an gateway. [...] [T]he fact that some aspects of a > gateway seem to work should not be construed that there exists a > right to demand that all aspects work flawlesly ... Not quite, but they should fix it or stop pretending, I think that's more or less what people mean. > 2) now to respond to the particular gripe of Paul, mainly that > SUN.COM converts addresses of the format "user@site.UUCP" to > "site!user@SUN.COM". > it is my understanding that UUCP is *NOT* a domain, and that, > therefore, [...] changing this to "site!user@SUN.COM" is the correct > thing to do. Well, certainly change it to something-or-other@sun.com. > So, when RASCAL gets "gatewayed" mail from SUN.COM, I'd have a > *RIGHT* to complain if the return-address was not in the form that > SUN provides... so what is SUN to do? Whatever they do, any From: line they emit should be replyable. Presumably this would involve tacking on the name of the UUCP neighbor from whom they received the mail. Let's pick an example out of thin air: suppose Sun receives mail over UUCP from laidbak, with a from-line of blurfl!user. In sending along that from-line, laidbak is implicitly claiming they will undertake to get mail to the originator if it's handed to them addressed to blurfl!user. So Sun might put something like laidbak!blurfl!user@sun.com in the From: line they emit on the Internet. Or they can do something else. But whatever they emit, it should be replyable, that's the one overriding concern. Our mailer doesn't always emit pretty addresses, but it does its best to make sure they're replyable. When it has reason to believe the address is useless through no fault of its own, it'll even insert a warning into the message to that effect (an action for which I have taken some flak, but such is life). > Maybe you get the drift, Paul and Brandon: you are getting something > for free here from SUN and others, so when you report some > "perceived" problem, why bash on people/sites in public the way you > do? why not send a private e-mail message to the postmaster of the > site you perceive as having a problem and [...] Perhaps they already tried that. How would we know? der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu