🚀 go-pugleaf

mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) writes:
>>I _can't_ send
>>	From: chip@tct.uucp
>>in the headers.  "uucp" is not a valid top-level domain.  Similarly,
>>	From: tct!chip
>>is insufficient due to no "@right.hand.side."  See RFC 822 in several
>>places, such as the syntax grammar beginning section 4.1 page 17: the
>>"mailbox" spec must be properly dealt with.

>  But, I/chip/tct-admin PUT chip@tct.UUCP in the From:
>  If I can't get a reply, THAT IS MY PROBLEM!!!!!

I disagree.  You don't have to abide by the standards - the gateway
site does.  It is the gateway's responsibility to see that headers are
conformant to the environment the message is about to enter.  For
example, it is Karl's responsibility to make sure that mail to
Compuserv is conformant with their standards, not yours.

>  If I want a reply bad enough I can do two things:
>  a) Put the correct Reply-To: in. (and hope attention gets paid to it)
>  b) Register my site under the appropriate valid top-level domain
>and get an MX record. 

(a) is pointless; you might as well substitute a proper from line.
(b) is highly recommended.

>  Since I assume you'd prefer you have everyone do (b), why encourage
>the tct.UUCP people from being lazy, and in the meantime, possibly
>mangle the From: beyond recognition. 

I would think that when tct finds out that someone is mangling their
from lines, they will do their best to correct the situation.  To me,
that is positive incentive towards fixing the problem.

>  Whenever someone asks me how to reply to a munged address, I tell
>them they can't. I have no problem telling people on an Internet site
>that they can't send to *.UUCP. And then explaining all the kludges
>a couple of minutes later. 

This is negative incentive for change, exactly opposite of what you
arguing for, above.  Why should the people in .UUCP bother to fix
themselves when others are continually finding new kludges to skirt
around the brain damage?

-- 
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]