🚀 go-pugleaf

In <11-PCNews-124beta@pos.pub.uu.oz.au> 
   Mark.Purcell@pos.pub.uu.oz.au (Mark Purcell) writes:

> [...]
> 
> I am of the opinion that if an address if a FQDN that it shouldn't be UUCP
> munged as a FQDN should make sense from anywhere :-).
> 
> Any thoughts?

Yes, I agree! As far as I am concerned, it has been LONG ENOUGH for bang
path addressing (and it's SMTP cousin, @-path addressing) to be exorcised
from end-user exposure. That stuff is low-level source routing, and is the
property of the mail transport. RFC976 specifies it for uucp, and RFC821
specifies it for SMTP. Messing with the RFC822 headers of a message should
be verboten.

Unfortunately, enough people haven't caught up to the modern way on UUCP,
so it's "safe" to pre-route a return path and/or a from. All this does is
prolong the agony. 

"If you can't route UUCP (no pathalias/maps), send your messages to a
system that can (smart-host)" -- Bob Denny, September 1992.

  :-)  :-)  :-)

_______________________________________________________________________________
Robert B. Denny                                           voice: (818) 792-9474
Alisa Systems, Inc.                                         fax: (818) 792-4068
Pasadena, CA                         (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)