🚀 go-pugleaf

(Russ Nelson & David Daniel) and others followed up on my questions,
but I don't seem to have made my point clear enough.

		but what is adding the Reply-To: errors? I
		see too many to think they are being done by hand.

I know about the RNINIT variable. (nn lets you do the same. ) I also
know that old versions of rn called everyone a .UUCP site, (in the
From: line) EVEN IF THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED.

My question is: Who/what is adding the bogus .UUCP Reply-To: headers? 
I'm hard pressed to believe that all those users out there are doing so
one at a time. I see too many. Is there some piece of net software that
is perpetuating the rn error, extended to the Reply-To: line, also?

re: 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.

My understanding, (secondhand, of course) is that the postmaster is
doing this deliberately. I doubt yelling at such will do anything, hence
my RFC question. On the other hand, I am a {very minor} stockholder.
Maybe I should write to the CEO about this abuse of my earnings/share.
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu 
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335