Re: Sender header?

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
> * prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)  on Sun, 27 May 2001
>| I'm not sure that's true in all cases.  I think it's possible to set
>| things up such that no rewriting is needed on the gateway.
> 
> What do you mean, you are not sure?  Have you never set up a masqerading
> SMTP gateway?  Have you never had to deal with users who don't know what
> the hell that means?  Sounds like you never have.

That's right.  But who cares?  I'm not saying that it's feasible in
all situations - only for some.  Possibly this would require a
controlled environment, with no clueless users to deal with, etc.  You
may say that this is not "the real world", or that you don't care
about dealing with such circumstances, but that doesn't mean that they
don't exist, can't be created, or are prohibited by any RFC.

> Everything you have said probably looks good to you on paper, but it
> is worthless in the real world.

I never claimed it was useful in what you think of as "the real
world".  I only claim that it could be useful in some situations, and
it is permitted by the RFCs; in particular, I do not claim anything
about how common such situations might be.

> The last thing I will say to you, Paul, is to shut up until you have some
> real world experience in dealing with mail handling, because right now you
> have no idea what you are talking about, and you are just making things
> difficult for everyone by spewing crap for answers.

No, *you* don't know what I'm talking about.  You think I'm trying to
be ambitious and make (logically) strong claims which are false.  And
I agree that those claims are false, but those aren't the claims I'm
making.  I'm making (logically) weaker claims which are true.


paul