Jacob_Palme_QZ@QZCOM.MAILNET (09/16/84)
Original date: Wed 29 Aug 84 12:32:03-PDT.
FROM: Scott L. McGregor <MCGREGOR%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
For a real problem to exist there have to be two systems at fault, the
one who sent the garbage and the one who received it and belched. Both
sides have failed to meet the courtesy standard, and so argue about who
is more at fault, and who should have to do something about it in the
future.
I do not agree. Our interface is certainly written according to the
principle: Accept much in input, follow standards strict on output.
(With some small exceptions, we are misusing the BCC field on output.)
But in our system, we have a special command to make it easy to send a
message to the author of a previous message. If the RFC822 header does not
contain the necessary information to implement such a command, then the
system which created this header is to be blamed.
Also, I would certainly prefer not to have to have two different algorithms
in order to find out where to send a reply to the author, one for headers
from some systems and one for headers from another system.
No field except the FROM field gives information about where to send
a reply to the author of a message except possibly the REPLY-TO field.
Also, we have another command in our system to send a reply to everyone
who received a certain previous message. For that command to work,
we need correct machine addresses in the TO, CC and BCC fields.
Some systems include unexpanded local macro calls in these fields,
and only expand these macros to correct machine addresses in the
SMTP-RECEIVER fields. We do not like this. And that is not because
we are unliberal or narrowminded, but only because we want to provide
a good service to our users with these two replying commands which
we have.