Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!chinet!les From: les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: using Path: for mail replies Message-ID: <6353@chinet.UUCP> Date: 22 Aug 88 15:58:37 GMT References: <676@bacchus.dec.com> <881@vsi1.uucp> <10135@e.ms.uky.edu> <60@minya.uucp> <8528@swan.ulowell.edu> <879@ncrcan.toronto.ncr.com> <63@volition.dec.com>Reply-To: les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Lines: 24 In article eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >> "Path:" lines should be changed in the next release of B/C/TMN News, so > >I understand the problem you've been discussing, but I have rejected (for now) >the idea of eliminating Path lines as available for reply generation. Doing so >would leave an awful lot of small UUCP-only sites (the ones *not* running >smail) in the lurch. > >An alternative I am looking into is bundling the smail software with news and >arranging the news autoconfigure/install sequence to also configure and install >smail. Then everybody really could use From: and Reply-To: lines exclusively.-- The problem is being caused by the news software. Why not fix it there? How about making the news software generate what it considers to be the optimal mail reply address in another header. Sites that can auto-route would use the user@site notation from the Reply-to: line, sites that cannot would construct a path back to the last site that re-routes with whatever notation is required to request that site to re-route. (I think the *real* problem here is that there is no standard way to request a site to perform routing - then explicit paths could always be left alone). In case the news feed does not want to deliver your mail replies (att?), this header could be adjusted to use an alternate route without requiring additional software. Les Mikesell