From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36433 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stainless Steel Rat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:12:17 -0400 Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade Message-ID: <01May25.161238edt.115273@gateway.intersys.com> References: <01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.153439edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <01May24.163305edt.115259@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172017 8537 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:46:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 19121 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 20:13:06 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 19116 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 20:13:06 -0000 Original-Received: from gateway.intersys.com (HELO intersys.com) (198.133.74.253) by gnus.org with SMTP; 25 May 2001 20:13:06 -0000 Original-Received: by gateway.intersys.com id <115273>; Fri, 25 May 2001 16:12:38 -0400 Original-To: "(ding)" X-Attribution: Rat In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) Original-Lines: 24 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36433 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36433 * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) on Fri, 25 May 2001 | Where do the RFCs support your notion of correctness WRT MX records? MX records make it possible to deliver mail that would otherwise bounce off of a host that is not configured to accept mail. The rest should be as obvious as adding 2 and 2. [...] | You are always the same person, and all your mailboxes identify you | equally well all the time. The fact that you're using only one of | them at any given moment changes nothing. You are incorrect. | I see no such requirement. Using an unqualified name like | "prj@multivac" will indeed break things, of course. But you're also | inventing the requirement for a *particular* FQDN - the local one. | This requirement is not in RFC 2822. You are again incorrect. Read the definitions again. -- Rat \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \