Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!rutgers!texbell!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: help@kendra.kew.com (UUPC/extended help and invalid reply addresses)
Keywords: UUPC
Message-ID: <.B.+58C@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 25 Feb 90 12:58:57 GMT
References: <1990Feb24.140112.25522@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 24

In article <1990Feb24.140112.25522@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> help@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes:
>I DO NOT read .sig files.  If you are using UUPC, add your correct,
>legal Internet addressable address to a replyto line in your
>configuration file BEFORE sending me mail.  I don't care if your
>address is valid, without a replyto address I will not reply to mail
>that does not have a simple domain name.  If you are not using UUPC,
>get your hostmaster to your mailer.

UUPC/Extended shows an excessively narrow attitude about reply
addresses. Not every system - especially the UUCP systems that
UUPC/Extended would talk - has an Internet address. A friend has a
system running UUPC/Extended and cannot reply to mail sent to him from
another system directly connected to mine - it INSISTS on trying to
respond to jantor.conmicro.com, which doesn't work. Any attempt to
reply to a message sent via the bang path gets thrown out, even though
the bang path is valid and working/ Why does it do this? If it's apolicy
decision, it maked UUPC/Extended nearly unusable; if it's a bug, it's a
nasty one. Please fix it.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
                             Free the DC-10!