Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!albanycs!crdgw1!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: rewriting FROM: lines Keywords: RFC 822, RFC 976, rudeness, bounce Message-ID: <1989May19.142527.27111@ateng.ateng.com> Date: 19 May 89 18:25:27 GMT References: <1936@edison.GE.COM> <1989May17.194701.16816@ateng.ateng.com> <528@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> Distribution: usa Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 25 According to jthomp@hemaneh.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson): >Interesting, can you provide examples [of UUCP problems at Sun]? Well, I'd say the general policy of "no UUCP routing ever" is part of the problem. The rest of the problem is the policy of rewriting headers as they pass through the site, even if they are not destined for the Internet. >UUCP (and 'bang addressing') are a really stupid way of doing things. >Hence, foo@bar.UUCP is (almost) as bad as bar!foo. I have no idea >which 'bar' you mean. foo@bar.baz.{com,edu,org,net,...} Does tell me >which 'bar' you mean, and I have some hope of delivering it. I mean "the bar in the UUCP maps". Although such a meaning is not specified in any RFC, it's nonetheless accurate. IMHO, if you advertise UUCP links in the UUCP maps, you should be willing to provide UUCP-like behavior. A rabid header rewriter is not typical UUCP behavior. It is, in fact, evil and rude. I avoid rabid rewriters and rabid rerouters with (almost) equal fervor. (Incidentally, your rn is generating "Reply-To: jthomp@hemaneh.UUCP".) -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."