Re: Fully-qualifying Email addresses in outgoing mail

[Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* patl@cag.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti)  on Fri, 10 Dec 1999
| Sure, having no control of your system's MX record *and* wanting to
| receive mail there is the NORM!  No other configuration should even be
| supported.  What was I thinking?

It is common practice to give contractors very limited system access, only
as much as they require to do their jobs, no more.  When I had a ClearCase
contractor in a couple of months ago, I gave him root on the ClearCase view
server because he needed it, and that is where people could send him mail
while he was working for us.  I sure as Hell did not give him access to my
name servers or mail hubs.

| It would be useful to 99.9% of all users, but not to you, so it should
| not be offered as an option.  Very sensible.  Thanks for your help.

I would like to know where you get your numbers.  Where I work we have 300
employees, about 1/3 of which use local mail on our development systems.  I
do not really consider my slice of the world to be statistically useful,
but 100 people is more than the "zero" you previously stated use local
mail.  So I think I have good reason not to go breaking local mail delivery
simply because you think *all* mail must be Internet mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0g (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE4UXvggl+vIlSVSNkRAuxnAJ9tYYmSeAdOCPCUjVipgyw/jjNGkwCgn/lr
JOIFyROJH0lFFGWVbza/H/4=
=6+F5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.