From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36486 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sender header? Date: 27 May 2001 19:31:02 -0400 Message-ID: References: <01May25.160823edt.115290@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 1035172062 8849 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:47:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:47:42 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 20632 invoked by alias); 27 May 2001 23:31:03 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 20627 invoked from network); 27 May 2001 23:31:03 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (261@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 27 May 2001 23:31:03 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 31199 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2001 23:31:24 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: "\(ding\)" In-Reply-To: (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "27 May 2001 19:14:24 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 36 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36486 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36486 Stainless Steel Rat 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