Article View: net.mail.headers
Article #271Re: "blaming Unix SendMail"
From: Mark Crispin
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 1984 21:31
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 1984 21:31
16 lines
1653 bytes
1653 bytes
To answer smoot@UT-SALLY's defense of Sendmail, I should point
out that the TOPS-20 mailsystem (in particular, its MMailr module)
also operates in a heterogenous network mail environment. MMailr
doesn't require gothic configuration files to do the right thing.
I will confess that MMailr doesn't try to bridge between different
mail syntaxes. user@host is a perfectly reasonable syntax to standardize
on, and I see no particular reason to encourage relative addressing
unless it is absolutely necessary. What does
foo!bar!rag!zowie
mean when host bar knows of TWO DIFFERENT machines called rag? Can't
happen, you say? Nonsense; it is a real problem between Internet and
several University LAN's right now. In other words, relative addressing
is only safe to use in the cases where it is unnecessary!
-------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<491@hou3c.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPAShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA (Mark Crispin) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: "blaming Unix SendMail" Message-ID: <491@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 16:31:17 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.491 Posted: Fri Apr 20 16:31:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Apr-84 02:32:32 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 16 To: smoot@UT-SALLY.ARPA Cc: Header-People@MIT-MC.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "allegra!hou3c!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!smoot at mit-vax" of Fri 20 Apr 84 09:42:20-PST Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041 Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)