help@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) (02/24/90)
In the latest release of UUPC, I added a comment for questions to be send to help@kendra.kew.com; I am discovering that fully 1/2 half of mail replied to has an invalid address in that it cannot be replied to. I DO NOT read .sig files. If you are using UUPC, add your correct, legal Internet addressable address to a replyto line in your configuration file BEFORE sending me mail. I don't care if your address is valid, without a replyto address I will not reply to mail that does not have a simple domain name. If you are not using UUPC, get your hostmaster to your mailer. If you wish to verify your mail can replied to from the internet, send mail to echo@omnigate.clarkson.edu. It does what the name implies automatically. Also: UUPC does not currently support news beyond dumping it in the directory listed in the configuration file. Stop asking about it, okay? Finally, BUY and READ the Nutshell Handbooks for UUCP before sending me mail. I had at least one note in the past week that was answered by the Nutshell Handbook on "Managing UUCP and USENET". Do I feel guilty making such statements? Nope, cause it's free, and I don't have time. Drew Derbyshire Internet: help@kendra.kew.com Snail mail: 108 Decatur St, Apt 9 Voice: 617-641-3739 Arlington, MA 02174
" Maynard) (02/25/90)
In article <1990Feb24.140112.25522@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> help@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes: >I DO NOT read .sig files. If you are using UUPC, add your correct, >legal Internet addressable address to a replyto line in your >configuration file BEFORE sending me mail. I don't care if your >address is valid, without a replyto address I will not reply to mail >that does not have a simple domain name. If you are not using UUPC, >get your hostmaster to your mailer. UUPC/Extended shows an excessively narrow attitude about reply addresses. Not every system - especially the UUCP systems that UUPC/Extended would talk - has an Internet address. A friend has a system running UUPC/Extended and cannot reply to mail sent to him from another system directly connected to mine - it INSISTS on trying to respond to jantor.conmicro.com, which doesn't work. Any attempt to reply to a message sent via the bang path gets thrown out, even though the bang path is valid and working/ Why does it do this? If it's apolicy decision, it maked UUPC/Extended nearly unusable; if it's a bug, it's a nasty one. Please fix it. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Free the DC-10!
help@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) (02/27/90)
From article <.B.+58C@splut.conmicro.com>, by jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard): > UUPC/Extended shows an excessively narrow attitude about reply > addresses. Not every system - especially the UUCP systems that > UUPC/Extended would talk - has an Internet address. A friend has a > system running UUPC/Extended and cannot reply to mail sent to him from > another system directly connected to mine - it INSISTS on trying to > respond to jantor.conmicro.com, which doesn't work. Any attempt to > reply to a message sent via the bang path gets thrown out, even though > the bang path is valid and working/ Why does it do this? If it's apolicy > decision, it maked UUPC/Extended nearly unusable; if it's a bug, it's a > nasty one. Please fix it. I think you need an entry in the HOSTPATH file. This overrides routing for all but directly connected hosts. You could probably even load it with a modified pathalias output if you tried hard. Please note that the topic addressed in MY case was that I personally refuse to decipher .sig files to choose an address to reply to mail; I spent my $35 and got my domain registered and got myself into the maps so I people can find me. I need to know where it gets the bad address from, and where it should get the good address from. Given that and the name of the systems, I can tell you (as a public example) what goes in there. Send me sample mail with all the headers intact. It is not only looking at the RFC-822 address, but also doing short circuit routing on the path if in the from address; clearly, something is a tad screwed up. I love bug reports ... better you find it than me. Then I can fix it for both of us ... mail them to help@kendra.kew.com. Note: UUPC itself only supported one mail server; given that I wrote the new router from scratch to handle mostly RFC-822 mail and I can't test bang paths easily, I'm amazed it works at all. :-) Drew