From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/28098 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: patl@cag.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Fully-qualifying Email addresses in outgoing mail Date: 10 Dec 1999 19:55:40 -0500 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035165006 28088 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:50:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:50:06 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA00806 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:57:08 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAB28081; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:56:55 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:56:46 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18766 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:56:36 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from egghead.curl.com ([216.230.79.4]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA00784 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:56:13 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (qmail 7782 invoked by uid 10171); 10 Dec 1999 19:55:40 -0500 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of "10 Dec 1999 17:17:49 -0500" Original-Lines: 53 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:28098 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:28098 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > It is common practice to give contractors very limited system > access, only as much as they require to do their jobs, no more. Yes, I think you have made it clear that the functionality I suggest would not be useful to you. > | 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. Think about it for 2 seconds, and you will find it obvious that *the vast majority of systems do not have local mail delivery at all*. Every box running Windows 9x, for example. Almost every box running NT. Remember that wildcard MX record you mentioned earlier? Gee, I wonder why it was set up that way. In a well-administered network, almost none of the Unix boxes do mail delivery, either. Email to "root" goes to the administrator of the *network*. See? > Where I work we have 300 employees, about 1/3 of which use local > mail on our development systems. That sounds like a poorly-administered disaster. > 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. Compared to the world of Windows users, it's zero. (And yes, the whole point of this exercise from my point of view are the people running Emacs on win32. The Unix users just invoke qmail-inject.) > So I think I have good reason not to go breaking local mail delivery > simply because you think *all* mail must be Internet mail. Yes, you do, because you are one of those unusual users for whom there exists local mail delivery to break. Did I forget to mention that I am suggesting an *option*? That means it would be optional. That means you could opt out. That means you would not have to use it. I agree that smtpmail itself might be a better place to fix this, since it does not presently send valid SMTP mail. But since message-mode can already perform a variety of RFC822 canonicalizations (like adding From, Message-ID, and Date), it is not much of a stretch to throw another into the mix. - Pat