Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA29490; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:03:13 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:03:11 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA29484; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:03:10 -0400
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id CAA13455; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:03:08 -0400
Message-Id: <199506010603.CAA13455@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>, moore@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: getting started 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jun 1995 01:23:55 +0200."
             <199505312336.TAA05933@CS.UTK.EDU> 
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 02:03:02 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU


> You have no idea how much whining you can get as a list owner from
> people whose mail program shows the *poster* rather than the *list*
> as message originator in the inbox directory. People actually switch
> to other mail packages just for that.

Yes, and you can also get whining from people whose mail programs show
"Multiple recipients of FOO list" or some such garbage as the
recipient.  Users will complain about anything that differs from what
they think is the right behavior, regardless of whether that behavior
conforms to the standard.

And yes, users *will* complain when their gateways rewrite Internet
addresses into synthetic local addresses...unless they are already
accustomed to that behavior.

--

But a word about our scope: We are here to clarify the proper behavior
for *Internet* MTAs and UAs.  Gateways have to conform to these rules
as best they can.  If they fail to conform, they don't meet the
standard.  That won't stop people from connecting those gateways to
the Internet. But we should make it very clear what the rules are, so
at least the gateway implementors will know what to shoot for.

In this group at least, we are NOT going to tell gateway vendors how
to map to and from Internet mail.  Such advice would be valuable, but
it doesn't belong in the main Internet mail standards, and it's not
within our charter to produce such advice.

At best we can indicate which of the provisions of the mail standards
are more important than others.  That way, if a gateway implementor is
faced with a tradeoff (e.g. reply to envelope vs. bounce to header),
there is a clear indication of which one wins.

Keith