Article View: comp.mail.headers
Article #64Re: Assumptions & Rules for Transiting UUCP/SMTP Messages.
From: %%%lear%%%
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1989 08:47
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1989 08:47
16 lines
1154 bytes
1154 bytes
[In reply to Geoff Goodfellow's message, <1368@fernwood.MPK.CA.US>] This is not really a criticism on your suggestions for gateways, but more a point on interprotocol routing, in general. It is up to a gateway to decide how it will handle a protocol conversion. That site must perform some manipulation on the header (as specified by what protocol exists at the far end). So long as the message is delivered, the gateway's responsibility is discharged. It would also be nice, if at all possible, if the gateway presents a replyable message. For example, BITNET was in past well known for its limitations on usernames and hostnames. DECNET is even worse. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Jul.13.01.47.09.1989.6414@NET.BIO.NET>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!%%%lear%%%@NET.BIO.NETReferences:
<1368@fernwood.MPK.CA.US>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!%%%lear%%%@NET.BIO.NET From: %%%lear%%%@NET.BIO.NET Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Assumptions & Rules for Transiting UUCP/SMTP Messages. Message-ID: <Jul.13.01.47.09.1989.6414@NET.BIO.NET> Date: 13 Jul 89 08:47:10 GMT References: <1368@fernwood.MPK.CA.US> Sender: lear@NET.BIO.NET Lines: 16 To: geoff@Fernwood.MPK.CA.US