king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) (01/25/90)
Yes, I know this is the wrong place for this message. Forgive me, but this
site doesn't seem to get any non-local test groups...
The system administrator here posted a message recommending a certain
"Reply-To" line. Fine and dandy, but from my (admittedly scant) knowledge
of network paths I don't think the "Reply-To" will work. He's
recommended this:
Reply-To: motcid!king@uunet.uu.NET
It seems to me that this will try to first send to the site "motcid", and
from there to "king@uunet.uu.NET". Great, except that I'm not *at*
uunet, I *am* at motcid. How will this really be parsed? As
(motcid!king) @ (uunet.uu.NET)
or
(motcid) ! (king@uunet.uu.NET)
And, to put all wondering aside, would someone please be kind enough to
hit <R>eply to this note and see if the "Reply-To" line actually works?
(Then, if the mail bounces, would you be so kind as to send the bounced
mail to one of the addresses shown in my .signature? It'll help debugging
the address from this end.)
Thanks in advance, eh!
--
---------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you must be | Steve King (708) 991-8056
part of the precipitate. | ...uunet!motcid!king
| ...ddsw1!palnet!stevekpeltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) (01/25/90)
In article <934@grape3.UUCP> motcid!king@uunet.uu.NET writes: > Reply-To: motcid!king@uunet.uu.NET > >It seems to me that this will try to first send to the site "motcid", and >from there to "king@uunet.uu.NET". Great, except that I'm not *at* >uunet, I *am* at motcid. How will this really be parsed? As > > (motcid!king) @ (uunet.uu.NET) >or > (motcid) ! (king@uunet.uu.NET) If the mailer understands Internet format, it will be the first one. I believe that older mailers that don't understand Internet format would interpret it the second way. The whole area is a kludge anyway, and whatever the sender uses will probably be re-written willy-nilly by some overzealous mailer at some stage in the process. I'd suggest leaving the Reply-To: field out, and let your fully qualified domain name get your mail to you. If that won't work for someone, chances are that they'd have problems with whichever version you settle for in your Reply-To: field as well, which means they'll have to just take a look at your signature or know the routing to a smarter host. -- Steve Peltz (almost) CFI-G "Monticello traffic, Glider 949 landing 18, full stop"