Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA27746; Wed, 31 May 1995 17:35:56 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 31 May 1995 17:35:53 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA27735; Wed, 31 May 1995 17:35:49 -0400 Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.50); id AA00138 Thu, 1 Jun 1995 07:35:44 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: getting started In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 22:49:35 +0200." <199505312101.RAA25163@CS.UTK.EDU> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 07:34:24 +1000 Message-Id: <850.801956064@munnari.OZ.AU> From: Robert Elz Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 22:49:35 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Message-ID: <199505312101.RAA25163@CS.UTK.EDU> From the standards' perspective, we're talking about a simple technical impossibility. It is technically impossible to gateway Internet to most LAN mail products and follow all the standards. I doubt this is true. It would simply be an unconventional method (and would violate the "do not munge headers" rule, that no-one takes much notice of, and doesn't apply to gateways to non-internet mail anyway). That is, the gateway just needs a database, all messages going into the brain dead mail system have their From: lines totally replaced, and now refer to magic-number@gateway. Messages sent to that address are inspected, if they are some kind of bounce message, then the message is returned to the original rfc821 envelope address, if its a reply, the message is returned to the original Reply-To, or From address. Fortunately, bounce messages from private mail systems are generally very easy to detect, they tend to all follow a pretty standard form, for fairly obvious reasons. There are a bunch of issues to work out - when to clean up the database, etc - plus users getting mail from the same person over and over, with a different address each time, but it is the kind of solution that will protect the internet, and that's what internet gateways should install. Long term, this really should become a non issue. Even ignoring the internet issues, even MS must eventually realise that their mailer can't really cope with internal, purely MS mail based, mailing lists, and send errors to the correct place - eventually with e-mail becoming more and more a fact of life everywhere, mail systems are going to have to get sensible functionality (they also need it for X.400 gateways). kre