wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/11/90)
clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clement Lee) writes: > My question is: Will replying mail be able to reach me if I use:- > 1. clement@buengf.UUCP > 2. clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu > 3. clement@buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu No, yes, no. w.
clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clement Lee) (01/11/90)
I have installed NNTP's remote readnews program on my machine a week
ago, and upon "following-up" news, I found my "Reply-To" path to be
the following when the editor was once invoked:
clement@buengf.UUCP
And I have to change it to "clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu"
everytime, as my friend advised me.
My question is: Will replying mail be able to reach me if I use:-
1. clement@buengf.UUCP
2. clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu
3. clement@buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu
I saw someone using the third format recently in news, and is it a
newer format that just got adopted?
Remarks: buengf is a local machine, while bu-cs is on the ARPANET,
CSNET, ..., etc.
- Clement.
--
Internet, CSNET: clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu
UUCP: ...!{harvard,mit-eddie}!bu-cs!buengf.bu.edu!clementemv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (01/11/90)
In article <WISNER.90Jan10221909@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) writes: > 1. clement@buengf.UUCP > 2. clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu > 3. clement@buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu No, yes, no. Also clement@buengf.bu.edu, if you aren't worried about broken mailers that still use the DDN host table. (I see an address for buengf, so you don't have to worry about broken mailers that don't understand MX-only sites). --Ed
mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) (01/12/90)
In referenced article, clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clement Lee) writes: > I have installed NNTP's remote readnews program on my machine a week > ago, and upon "following-up" news, I found my "Reply-To" path to be > the following when the editor was once invoked: > > clement@buengf.UUCP > > And I have to change it to "clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu" > everytime, as my friend advised me. > > My question is: Will replying mail be able to reach me if I use:- > > 1. clement@buengf.UUCP Possibly, if buengf is is in the UUCP maps. But this is not an optimal address. > 2. clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu > 3. clement@buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu The specification only permits one "@" per address, and #3 is technically illegal, but a number of mailers will convert it to #2, which is deliverable. BUT, the correct answer is that your From: and Reply-To: headers should have the address clement@buengf.bu.edu since the BU nameservers have the proper (MX) record for buengf. Sites whose mailers use the Domain Name System (or send off-site mail to a smart relay that does) will be able to mail to that address. The MX record for buengf.bu.edu directs mail to the host bu.edu, which can be reached directly. So you don't have to (and shouldn't) use forms 1, 2, or 3 above, but should use your real FQDN (fully-qualified domain name). -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (01/12/90)
In <50351@@bu.edu.bu.edu> clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clement Lee):
^^^^^^^ not terribly siginificant, as it is just an id,
but perhaps something you might want to look
into fixing.
> I have installed NNTP's remote readnews program on my machine a week
> ago, and upon "following-up" news, I found my "Reply-To" path to be
> the following when the editor was once invoked:
>
> clement@buengf.UUCP
>
> And I have to change it to "clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu"
> everytime, as my friend advised me.
Others have already answered this but I wanted to offer a comment
about putting a UUCP machine name as the return address when the
machine has an Internet or other domain name. This is what I mail
to people when I observe it:
Since you have both an Internet address and a UUCP address, you
might want to consider making the Internet address the default
address for replies, either via the Reply-To: header or in the From:
header if you do not use Reply-To:. It is much easier on many
people (like me :-) who want to make replies and much more efficient
where it can be used. It also seems to generally be the case that
more UUCP people know how to gate to the Internet than Internet
people know how to get mail to UUCP sites.
Note also that it is a good idea to put the domain address for
non-Internet machines even if the machine is UUCP only. For example,
I don't know what sort of network connexions The Well has but I think
that using user@well.sf.ca.us is preferred to user@well.UUCP, though
for 90%+ cases it probably doesn't make a difference.
In <Jan.11.13.30.39.1990.19379@presto.IG.COM> mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael Berch)
> BUT, the correct answer is that your From: and Reply-To: headers
> should have the address
> clement@buengf.bu.edu
Better yet, make this appear in just the From: line and don't bother
with the redundant information in Reply-To:.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))clement@buengf.bu.edu (Clement Lee) (01/12/90)
In article <&WNSY^@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) wrote: > >In <50351@@bu.edu.bu.edu> clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clement Lee): > ^^^^^^^ not terribly siginificant, as it is just an id, > but perhaps something you might want to look > into fixing. This is a bug in our server host (bu.edu, and actually bu.edu.bu.edu is bu.edu), and our info-tech staff have announced that they are currently fixing it. And here, I'd like to thanks for all previous advice given on my question. - Clement. -- Internet, CSNET: clement@buengf.bu.edu (clement%buengf.bu.edu@bu-cs.bu.edu) UUCP: ...!{harvard,mit-eddie}!bu-cs!buengf.bu.edu!clement