Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!NYUMED!SMITH From: SMITH@NYUMED (Ross Smith: (212) 340-5356) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pmdf-l Subject: RE: RE: Problems with gateways... Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 23:22:00 GMT Sender: PMDF Distribution List Reply-To: PMDF Distribution List Lines: 11 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway Errors-to: postmast@YMIR.BITNET X-Organization: NYU Medical Center, 550 1st Ave., New York, NY 10016 X-Envelope-to: PMDF-L@IRLEARN.BITNET X-VMS-To: IN%"'Ned Freed, Postmaster' ",in%"ipmdf@ymir.bitnet" Comments: Warning -- RSCS tag indicates an origin of POSTMAST@YMIR X-To: NED@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU, ipmdf@YMIR In my case I would probably put in 'unwrite rules' for just two or three gate- ways, CUMYVM, CMU as examples. As Ned says, gateways often are included to make the address replyable, because no other route exists. In many cases, however, they are there for the sole reason that the mail to which they are replying passed through that gateway and the gate added its route to the mail. This is why there is a problem with CMU. All the mail to the CMU-TEK mailing list goes through CMU's paranoid mailer which adds otself as the route for the mail, ignoring the fact that it plans to bounce any mail sent in reply.