Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA22790; Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:59 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:56 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA22766; Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:52 -0400
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA27162 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:42 -0400
Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA01660 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199505312034.QAA01660@augusta.math.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6 4/21/95
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: getting started 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 22:00:06 +0200."
             <199505312010.QAA20373@CS.UTK.EDU> 
X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M<m
 c~dP_j^A?M5Jw{+a7vcMu|M-mq"V4AzKq?mPMMNP\;f8J0n\-L]ODU)YMP;-pF>+am,jlSP>1K$iz@
 %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg
 >zdML.SV<t=R>vX1W`adGIUD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:41 -0400
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

In message <199505312010.QAA20373@CS.UTK.EDU>, Eric Thomas writes:
>On Wed, 31 May 1995 15:55:21 -0400 Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu> said:
>name it.  This is what  the gateways  have to deal  with. You can  try to
>require  them  to wave  a  magic  wand  and  cause bounces  to  magically
>disappear into the  nature but that's just wishful  thinking,

Well, you said it yourself.   "In the  real  world,  standards  are
standards. If the standards say X you do X. If your program is found to
do X' and X' is not allowed by the standard, you apologize and fix it to
do X. This is the way the industry at large operates, and this has worked
successfully for decades."

I agree fully with Keith.  We should not "legalize" broken gateways.
Having clear standards which point the way to correct behavior is
the only way we'll get everyone to play the game using compatible rules.

(I agree with you on the reply-to-envelope address.  I don't want to see
any more programs out there do what MS-Mail does wrt replies.)

--Dave