Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decuac.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!decuac!avolio
From: avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <633@decuac.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:01:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: decuac.633
Posted: Sat Sep 28 08:01:23 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 06:20:26 EDT
References: <10361@ucbvax.ARPA> <3700008@ndm20>
Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD
Lines: 24

In article <3700008@ndm20>, tp@ndm20 writes:
> Everyone proposing standard ways of  doing things  please repeat this
> to yourself until you understands what it means!  Every proposal that
> has been made so far about the proper way  to address  and route mail
> will  require  me  to  retire  my mailer  and run  (and probably port
> myself) something from  elsewhere, and  you people  are talking about
> changing the  whole damn  thing because  of a  bug in  ONE version of
> unix!

I understand Terry's frustration.  I would be too if it looked like
with some wonderful "fix" that other's implement I'd be cut off from
electronic mail.  But no one will be or need be forced to change
software.  There are different levels of sophistication in mailers and
all will be accommodated.  For example, if your mailer can only handle
explicite paths, then you juts use the explicite path if you have it
-- nothing changes.  Terry might see this address in the From_ line if
I sent him mail

	smu!texsun!ut-sally!seismo!decuac.ATL.UUCP!avolio

So your mailer can handle that.  Just send it on to smu ...  So nothing
need change -- especially if it cannot -- at your site.

Fred.