🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27710D99.140E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>Munging addresses in *headers* just because dumb UUCP sites need bang
>paths in the *envelope* is misdirected at best.

This is indeed the crux of the matter.  Intelligent munging of envelopes
is considered "a good thing".

The problem is with MUAs that insist on using RFC822 headers for replies
but are distributed with MTAs that know nothing about RFC822 (or 976 or
1123, for that matter).

AT&T, are you listening?  Mailx knows about RFC822 headers and replies
to the "From:" line.  It passes the message to /bin/mail, which thinks
it must be a strange local address...

Munging the headers is just a defensive tactic against AT&T's
errors.

The fact that semi-intelligent MUAs and MTAs are freely available,
at no cost, is avoiding the fact that most computer installations
don't want to think about it.  They don't want to have to install
smail or elm or mush.  They bought the system and that's that.

The answer is to talk to your UUCP neighbors.  Ask what kind of
MTA or MUA they use.  Mung the headers accordingly.  Don't make
a universal rule of it.

We've got plenty of universal rules that work just fine.  Local
exceptions are *OK*.  As long as *you and your neighbor* know
what you're doing.

Talking about it on the net doesn't help.  Talking with your
local UUCP neighbor does.  UUNET, are you listening?



-- 
Orlan Cannon                            oc@vmp.com
Video Marketing & Publications, Inc.    (800) 627-4551
Oradell, NJ 07649