Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mica.berkeley.edu!wisner From: wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Signature files (LONG) Message-ID: <30753@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 19 Aug 89 06:09:36 GMT References: <2182@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <73.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Earl's Reptile Farm and Cheesy Dinosaur Park Lines: 20 >3. Related to (1.) is the fact that A. A reply-to line is not always in- > cluded (my system doesn't add it unless I specifically ask for it), > and B. if it isn't, the FROM: tag may either not be a correct path > back to you, or it is not the most efficient/effective path back to > you. My case in point again: the From line is thomas@mvac23.uucp > but the most efficient route back is via mvac23!thomas@udel.edu > (not at all obvious). Mail routing is not my concern. It is my machine's concern. When mail routing has to become my concern, somebody's machine (possibly mine) is broken. If your map entry is accurate -- and it apparently is -- mail to mvac23.uucp will automatically go through udel.edu. (My machine sends mail to mvac23 straight to udel. Bingo.) Oh, by the way: bozon spotted in your signature: >mvac23%thomas@udel.edu I don't think so. Make it thomas%mvac23@udel.edu or, even better, get rid of it altogether. One copy of your address is sufficient.