ROODE@BIONET-20.ARPA.UUCP (05/16/87)
Someone said this is the end of the world where this issue deserves the most play. Mail sent out from non-Internet hosts to the Internet is unrepliable in many cases because of this problem. --------------- Date: Tue 12 May 87 14:39:00-PDT From: David Roode <ROODE@BIONET-20.ARPA> Subject: MX-existence and mail header etiquette To: namedroppers@SRI-NIC.ARPA Phone: (415) 962-7322 Message-ID: <12301867965.47.ROODE@BIONET-20.ARPA> Phase-in timetables for defacto standards are generally informal. What's the feeling about the use of host names that are only valid where there is support for both a host name resolver and MX name server domain entries? It seems reasonable for forwarding hosts to show up in the From: header as a courtesy to those hosts who do not yet support MX-existence. Is this support a "required" or an "optional" part of name resolvers? At least considering that on some of the networks composing the internet name server use is optional, some period of visibilty for forwarding makes sense. Apparently RELAY.CS.NET does follow this principle, but not all the hosts relaying UUCP hosts' mail to the Internet do. ------- -------