lauren@rand-unix.arpa (12/06/85)
It should be pointed out that having extra X. file entries (like the R line) in some recent uucp's doesn't necessarily do you too much good in real world situations. There are several reasons for this. The first is that any intermediate site (be it uucp-based or not) that does not "understand" this additional information will drop it and the additional return address info provided will vanish at this point. But even if everyone ran the latest and greatest up to date software at all times, much returned mail would still get lost. And this isn't UUCP's fault--it's the fault of our extremely hybridized networking environment (I'm referring to the entire Internet). Much of the problem is caused by gateways. The various network gateways (for DDN, UUCP, BITNET, etc.) are extremely variable in the way they do address translations, frequently generating addresses (in headers and in transmission envelopes) that will never work for automatic replies. Often these involve hybrid @, !, and % addresses that even a net wizard would have difficulty in deciphering. I'd say that the vast majority of failed mail problems I've seen are the result of gateway addressing problems, not the fault of any particular "portion" of the networks themselves. That is, it's not the fault of DDN or UUCP or whatever, but more the fault of the interface and addressing problems (still being resolved and implemented) between these nets. --Lauren--