🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <740@ks.UUCP> kurt@ibmarc.UUCP (Kurt Shoens) writes:
>In article <1616@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> fritchie@thor.stolaf.edu (Scott Fritchie) writes:

>> Ever since we joined the Internet, we've been having some problems with
>> using the 'r' reply command in with UCB mail.  Occasionally, the addresses
>> the reply comes up with are horribly scrambled.  Here is a sample message:

> Scott goes on to give an example replying to a message with...
>    From fritchie@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu Sat Mar 18 15:13:14 1989
>    To: fritchie
>    (etc and so on)
>
> Replying to this yields
>    To: agnes.stolaf:fritchie@edu fritchie@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu

Ahh, we have been having this problem as well, but I didn't realize that
this was a result of the same garbage as I complained about a little while
ago here.

> In the file config.c, there is an initialization of the string "metanet"
> which might be improved by removing the . from the list.
>
> The rewriting of addresses by Mail as a Larger Issue was debated briefly
> in this space a few weeks ago.

That was me.  I still maintain that rather than make Mail ignore dots, as
Kurt suggests, you should just completely remove the rewriting rules
altogether.  UCB Mail should just not be rewriting addresses at all.

This is easily done by commenting out the two calls to mapf() in
_respond() (cmd3.c).  mapf() calls netmap(), which is the particularly
evil function lurking in there.

In article <11283@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> dheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Heller) writes:
> I am growing less and less sympathetic to those who still insist on using
> ucb-Mail *and* complain about it.  There are far too many "better" mailers
> out there that do things right...

I agree.  And Mush rocks.  I refuse to use UCB Mail, but unfortunately
lots of my users do.  I don't use UCB Mail, but I certainly do complain
about it.
-- 
Mark Sirota - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
 Internet: msir@cc.rochester.edu
 Bitnet:   msir_ss@uordbv.bitnet
 UUCP:     ...!rochester!ur-cc!msir