enger@BLUTO.SCC.COM (02/12/88)
Discussion has taken place on the need for a "protocol police", but I never thought it would come to controlling the content of the Subject: line.. The message that sparked this response has a From: field containing @psuvm.bitnet . Repair of the From: field should take precedence over commenting on the Subject: field. Bob Enger
mcc@ETN-WLV.EATON.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett) (02/12/88)
Bob: Thank you for the remark about the "From:" field. It may not be relevant but it does seem that since the implementation of the new End/End Protocol that there has been a marked increase of comments/suggestions in this forum from interested parties without valid return addresses. Belay that remark, it probably started with the change to "name servers" from "host tables", it just got worse. Perhaps its a problem with my view of electronic mail, particularly mail that is for forwarded to "tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa"; it is irrelevant to me whether a subscriber to this service from "bangland" failed to leave his PC powered-up to receive my comment or retort of questionable significance. Why should I be inundated with "unable to deliver to xxx" messages? Its "tcp-ip" that needs the knowledge as it may signify some network problem! It does raise some questions about SMTP and its interpretation of "From:" and "Forwarded by:". The reporting of delivery errors should always be delivered to the "Forwarded by:" individual not the "From:" individual who may not have authorized the dissemination of the message. Merton Campbell Crockett