mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (09/07/88)
In article <3053@utastro.UUCP>, werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > In article <12307@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >> As quoted from <71@volition.dec.com> by vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): >>> (and unless certain sites stop rewriting <foo@bar.UUCP> into >>> <bar!foo@Sun.COM> on UUCP pass-though mail). >> [Sun horror story] >> I suspect the folks at sun just don't give a d*mn what their mail >> system does, as long as it works over their Internet connections. > I'm getting a bit tired of this bashing of SUN by Paul and others and > I wonder if they care to present a "fair" picture of the problems. > So, for what it's worth, here are my 2 cents worth ... > 1) SUN.COM does an incredibly valuable service to [the UUCP world] by > functioning as an gateway. [...] [T]he fact that some aspects of a > gateway seem to work should not be construed that there exists a > right to demand that all aspects work flawlesly ... Not quite, but they should fix it or stop pretending, I think that's more or less what people mean. > 2) now to respond to the particular gripe of Paul, mainly that > SUN.COM converts addresses of the format "user@site.UUCP" to > "site!user@SUN.COM". > it is my understanding that UUCP is *NOT* a domain, and that, > therefore, [...] changing this to "site!user@SUN.COM" is the correct > thing to do. Well, certainly change it to something-or-other@sun.com. > So, when RASCAL gets "gatewayed" mail from SUN.COM, I'd have a > *RIGHT* to complain if the return-address was not in the form that > SUN provides... so what is SUN to do? Whatever they do, any From: line they emit should be replyable. Presumably this would involve tacking on the name of the UUCP neighbor from whom they received the mail. Let's pick an example out of thin air: suppose Sun receives mail over UUCP from laidbak, with a from-line of blurfl!user. In sending along that from-line, laidbak is implicitly claiming they will undertake to get mail to the originator if it's handed to them addressed to blurfl!user. So Sun might put something like laidbak!blurfl!user@sun.com in the From: line they emit on the Internet. Or they can do something else. But whatever they emit, it should be replyable, that's the one overriding concern. Our mailer doesn't always emit pretty addresses, but it does its best to make sure they're replyable. When it has reason to believe the address is useless through no fault of its own, it'll even insert a warning into the message to that effect (an action for which I have taken some flak, but such is life). > Maybe you get the drift, Paul and Brandon: you are getting something > for free here from SUN and others, so when you report some > "perceived" problem, why bash on people/sites in public the way you > do? why not send a private e-mail message to the postmaster of the > site you perceive as having a problem and [...] Perhaps they already tried that. How would we know? der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
honey@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) (09/08/88)
mouse points out that when sun is relaying uucp mail into the internet, they are compelled to generate a from header that looks like From: something@sun.com. with this i'm sure we all agree. mouse goes on to make the case that the uucp name of sun's sender should be accounted for in the reconstructed from header. the logical extension of his argument is to copy the uucp from line (you know, the first line) into the from header. that way, sun can look at paul's from line, which says From vixie!paul some date remote from decwrl and make a from header that says From: decwrl!vixie!paul@sun.com ignoring paul's bogus from header entirely. (I'd suggest something like X-From-at-sun.com-was: vixie!paul.) of course, if paul's from header were already legitimate 822, sun shouldn't touch it. although my mailer doesn't do this (it's lazy, like sun's, but at least i use pathalias, so the replies mostly work), i suspect that using the unix from line instead of an existing non-822 address in a from header is more likely to succeed. peter
nowicki%rose@Sun.COM (Bill Nowicki) (09/10/88)
In article <1289@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: > > Whatever they do, any From: line they emit should be replyable. Exactly! That is the whole point. I have said this before, and will likely say it again many times before it sinks in: if you have a registered domain name in your From: line when going through Sun, then people WILL be able to reply to it. All those people whining about unreplyable mail should instead complain about people who have NOT registered their domains, or do not send valid From: lines to us. It is hard for me to justify spending time on something just because our competitors are too lazy to follow the standards. (Please no followups -- I only have time to read usenet every month or two. Too busy trying to fix the mail system rather than flame about it) --- WIN
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (09/10/88)
>Exactly! That is the whole point. I have said this before, and will >likely say it again many times before it sinks in: if you have a >registered domain name in your From: line when going through Sun, then >people WILL be able to reply to it. All those people whining about >unreplyable mail should instead complain about people who have NOT >registered their domains, or do not send valid From: lines to us. Oh, sure, they can reply. BUT YOU STILL SHOULD *NOT* BE TOUCHING MY FROM LINES. I've registered my domain, I send you valid From: lines, yet Sun still merrily chomps my headers. I don't like that. Why should replies to me go through an extra site, Sun, with the requisite extra delay and extra load on Sun? *I* don't want that and I'm sure Sun would be just as happy if they DIDN'T have to handle that message. >It is hard for me to justify spending time on something just because >our competitors are too lazy to follow the standards. Hah hah hee hee ho ho ho snicker. This is priceless. STANDARDS? I follow the standards perfectly and your mailer still spits on me. Justify that. How hard can it be to pass valid domains unmolested?
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (09/12/88)
In article <67663@sun.uucp> nowicki%rose@Sun.COM (Bill Nowicki) writes: >registered domain name in your From: line when going through Sun, then >people WILL be able to reply to it. All those people whining about >unreplyable mail should instead complain about people who have NOT >registered their domains, or do not send valid From: lines to us. The From: line of Mr. Nowicki's posting, at least, was "nowicki%rose@sun.com. Shouldn't we expect nowicki!rose.sun.com? >It is hard for me to justify spending time on something just because >our competitors are too lazy to follow the standards. HUH? Anyone who isn't Sun is your competitor? And whatever sun.com happens to do is defined as the standard? If sun.com will provide multiple MX records and forwarding and help register domains with the NIC for free, *then* Sun has a right to complain about people not registering their domains. -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is beak is not Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad