Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <9505311948.AA20298@snark.imsi.com>
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: getting started 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 21:18:28 +0200."
             <199505311934.PAA16627@CS.UTK.EDU> 
Reply-To: perry@imsi.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:48:06 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>


Eric Thomas writes:
> On Wed, 31 May 1995 14:49:50 -0400 Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu> said:
> 
> >1. When a  MTA needs to generate  a bounce message, what  is the correct
> >   address to use?  (answer: envelope FROM). Granted  there are gateways
> >   which  destroy  this out-of-band  address,  but  they should  not  be
> >   allowed to coexist with the Internet mail system.
> 
> I propose  going one step further  and banning all non-unix  systems from
> the Internet.  Ah, and require that  unix systems use sendmail.  This way
> all  the problems  are  solved and  it's clear  for  everyone what  we're
> talking about.
> 
Ahem.

1) This is not a unix issue.
2) If you can't understand that this issue is not a unix issue, you
   don't understand the issue.
3) I get on the order of two dozen improperly redirected bounce messages
   per day from brain-damaged machines that don't have this properly
   implemented. I really feel all those people should be off the
   internet until they can fix their hardware.

> It's easy for you to make this kind of demand, but there are MANY popular
> mail  systems that  don't have  a  concept of  "errors go  to address  1,
> replies go to address  2". So you have two options.  You can gateway them
> imperfectly, or  not gateway them.

Do you understand the difference between MTA and MUA?

Perry