🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2983@polari.UUCP> tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) writes:

   []I've got a couple bogus address questions:
   []
   []I've been seeing posts from people with valid FQDN From: headers, but
   []then an added Reply-To: foobar.UUCP header too!
   []
   []Now I know the bogus .UUCP cruft in the From: headers typically comes
   []outdated versions of 'rn,' but what is adding the Reply-To: errors? I
   []see too many to think they are being done by hand.

Rn's INIT file has model headers.  The Reply-To: field has a %s.UUCP in it,
*even* if your site has a FQDN, and uses it in the From: field.

   []Secondly, one site on the net seems to be deliberately BREAKING
   []outgoing addressing by making all postings and mail come from:
   []	nobody@XXXXX.com

Oh, you mean kodak.com?  [call a spade a spade.]  I've been yelling at
their postmaster for months, or more correctly, telling Kodak users to
yell at their sysadmin.  No change yet.
-russ
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  FAX 315-268-7600
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.