Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!tank!nic.MR.NET!shamash!halcdc!cctb!randy
From: randy@cctb.mn.org (Randy Orrison)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: "From:" vs. "From_"
Message-ID: <152@cctb.mn.org>
Date: 7 Dec 88 14:34:02 GMT
References:  <1297@ucsd.EDU> <1299@ucsd.EDU> <2379@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: randy@cctb.UUCP (Randy Orrison)
Organization: Chemical Computer Thinking Battery, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 28

In article <2379@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
|Perhaps RFC976 needs a Path: line, which everyone diddles, and a From:
|line, which only gateways diddle.

Why should gateways mess with the from line? One specific
counter-example: If I receive mail from a bitnet site at my "internet"
site, I just want "joe@site.bitnet" because I've got a good, close,
bitnet gateway that probably wasnt used when the mail came to me.  Why
should whatever gateway it came through on the way to me assume that it
has to go back the same way?

IMVHO: NO ONE should touch the From: header at all.  I'll put my address
in there when I send mail, and nobody knows better than I what my
address is.  If the receiving site doesn't know where to send mail for
.mn.org to, that's THEIR problem (they haven't been paying attention to
the maps).  A Path: header is a nice idea to help people with problems
like that, but a better idea is for them to set their stuff up
correctly.

(What?  You don't get the maps?  Neither do I.  I don't have any
problems.)

	-randy
-- 
Randy Orrison - Chemical Computer Thinking Battery - randy@cctb.mn.org
(aka randy@{umn-cs.uucp, ux.acss.umn.edu, umnacvx.bitnet, halcdc.uucp})
	"Blow a lawyer to pieces / It's the obvious way
	 Don't wait for a thesis / Do it today"		- Al Stewart