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