🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1061@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes:
>I've been thinking that there should be some organization that made sure
>sites had decent mailers - so many people violate the most fundamental
>parts of the major RFC's, for various reasons.  Some sites, like
>seismo, rutgers and csnet-relay do it because the admins there say
>"if we were 100% compliant, many sites could not respond, since THEY
>are not RFC compliant."  I say screw the sites that can't comply;
>this is the fastest way to get them to shape up.

I wish that we could take this attitude. Unfortunetly there are sites
that, for one reason or another, can't upgrade to compliant mailers.
We, those of us with smart mail software, must bend the rules occasionally
to keep things running.

>Far worse are the mailers that just plain mung addresses into an
>unusable format - I've even seen a MAJOR Usenet site smash Cc:
>lines, not to mention the From: lines.

So write to the postmaster and tell them.

>So what can be done?  If the CSNET-relay generates (technically)
>wrong addresses, should we expect them to police their member sites?
>How about BITNET and Internet net police forces?

If you know of a site that doesn't conform, call or write the sysadmin.
Talk to them. They probably aren't even aware of the problem. Explain
the importance of following the rules.

>Lastly, how about UUCP sites?  No organization can do it, and I don't
>know if any organization would want to.

Mark Horton and the UUCP Map Project are trying. It's a huge job. Help
them out.


-- 
Edward C. Bennett			UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward
					CSNET: edward@engr.uky.edu
"Goodnight M.A."			BITNET: edward%ukecc.uucp@ukma
		Change the world. Make a new friend today.