🚀 go-pugleaf

> The machine psuvax1 is on both USENET and BITNET.  It can be used as a 
> gateway as follows:
...
> It would appear that some BITNET mailers have a warped sense of what a 
> valid address is and what is allowed to appear in a mail header.

Hear hear.  I've been operating an Internet to BitNet gateway since 1984,
and I have quite a mugbook of some of the utter trash various BitNet mailers
seem to think is valid.  However, I do have a comment on the PSUVAX1 gateway.

We were recently out of touch with our usual Internet to UUCP gateway 
(due to unrelated problems) so I took the opportunity to try using PSUVAX1 
for some of my personal mail.  I got some advisories back.  None had any 
kind of "To:" field, a field required by RFC822 and used by my software to 
attempt to recover from BitNet's stupidity in truncating out-of-band addresses
to eight characters.  Needless to say my software didn't appreciate the lack 
of "To:" fields, and proceeded to break.  Fortunately I am notified of mail
system glitches and was appropriately chagrined to find said glitches 
traceable to mine own hand...

Regardless of the lack of order and standardization on BitNet I don't think
it wise for you to criticize while your own software is part of the problem.

Apologies in advance to anyone this might offend.

---------------

From: uucp@ihnp4.UUCP
Received: by psuvax1.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
        id AA01844; Tue, 4 Nov 86 19:34:47 est
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 19:34:47 est
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA05988; 4 Nov 86 13:13:56 CST (Tue)
Subject: Warning from uucp
Apparently-To: psuvax1!UMD2.BITNET!ZBEN

(Message text.)

PSUVAX1 should have put a "To: ZBEN@UMD2" header field in.  UMD2 would have
done the same for PSUVAX1  :-)
-- 
                    umd5.UUCP    <= {seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben
Ben Cranston zben @ umd2.UMD.EDU    Kingdom of Merryland Sperrows 1100/92
                    umd2.BITNET     "via HASP with RSCS"