dave@pta.UUCP (04/23/86)
That was a most interesting discussion, Robert. Certainly was enlightening. Permit me to introduce a possible analogy: Just because to want to drive a car from A to B, and you take certain streets (say 1, 2 & 3), it doesn't necessarily mean you can drive a dirty great prime mover back the other way! One way roads, load limits, etc etc. //SYSIN DD * Dave Horsfall VK2KFU ISD: +61 2 438-1266 VTL: 248181000 Lionel Singer Group STD: (02) 438-1266 20 Waltham St ARPA: munnari!pta.oz!dave@SEISMO Artarmon NSW 2064 UUCP: seismo!munnari!pta.oz!dave AUSTRALIA ACS: dave@pta, dave@elecvax, dave@runx #include <witticism.h>
joel@gould9 (04/27/86)
In article <6613@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > What existing Usenet standards are your referring to, John? > > The ones that I am aware of support domain addressing and discourage the > > use of the Path: line for return addresses. > > The key word is "discourage", as opposed to "forbid". The problem is that > the documented standards reflect a hope as to how the world will be one > day, not the facts of how it is today. last time I checked, 2.10.3 alpha (at least with the toggle I have set) generates replies from the "Path" header. I would not be suprised to learn that 2.10.1 and 2.10.2 do the same. I agree with Henry. Future hopes are nice, but this is reality for now. -- Joel West (619) 457-9681 CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037 {cbosgd, ihnp4, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel {seismo!s3sun, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun!pyramid} !gould9!joel joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA