🚀 go-pugleaf

> From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)

> I am not aware of any sites which cannot handle the cbosgd!cbosgd.ATT.UUCP!...
> stuff.

I don't think what we're arguing here is the unacceptability of 
cbosgd!cbosgd.ATT.UUCP by other sites, but the redundancy of the cbosgd.  Reply-
ing to a message which has the header

>From cbosgd.ATT.UUCP!chris remote from cbosgd

will cause the above to happen, which is handleable, but an eyesore as well.

I did some checking into mail.c (Sys V) and picked out what is supposed to go 
into the From (not From:) line of a mail message.

From <my_name> <date> remote from <thissys>

where my_name is obtained from the user's LOGNAME, or the password file if
LOGNAME isn't set, and thissys is obtained from a uname(2) call. 

Now in 4.2, I imagine these fields are obtained by doing similar things (uname
replaced by a whoami or something similar) but a name like cbosgd.ATT.UUCP!chris
was clearly not obtained by either of the means of obtaining my_name.

Now I know that there are no rules as far as how the syntax of UUCP addresses
should be, but perhaps we should at least stick to existing standards -- those
that have already been set in software.  Otherwise, poor dumb mailers will 
generate bad addresses unknowingly, and poor users who don't know any better
will panic when they can't reply to messages.
-- 
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes we wonder how I keep from goin' under.

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa