Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:1973 comp.mail.headers:496 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!dheller From: dheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Heller) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Return-view-to: Message-ID: <14552@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 11 Jun 89 19:27:33 GMT References: <3990@slxsys.specialix.co.uk> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: dheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Dan Heller) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 27 In article <3990@slxsys.specialix.co.uk> jpp@specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) writes: > Is the `Return-view-to:' header legal ? If so what should a user > agent do with it ? a User Agent? Don't you mean the Transport Agent? User agents don't deal with things like retrun-reciept-to, etc... MTAs to. but nevertheless, this is something I haven't heard of before, so I won't venture a guess as to what to do with it. However, I might shed some light on the origin of the problem. > > X-Mailer: SCO Office Portfolio (version 1.0) This comes frokm sco's funky little Office Automation package they developed. Mail was written without domains in mind or the foresight of a networking community. That is, this mailer does not handle mailing outside of sco very well. If it successfully delivers mail out of sco, the headers are outrageous -- it only allows one address on the To: header and it has all the names, address, domains, hostnames, pathes and sometimes even comment all scrunched together with a wild assortment of bangs and at's and the like interspersed between them. I once got a header: To: island!michaelb@island.sun.argv.uucp!jamescb.sco.maui@heller.dan.com when it was supposed to be addressed to: To: sun!island!maui!argv (dan heller), jamescb@sco.com, michaelb The good side of this is that sco does has a growing community of mush users within the company. Dan Heller