Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:02:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM> To: imp@rover.village.org Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing Message-ID: <199707251502.KAA04543@compound.east.sun.com> References: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> <199707241422.HAA00957@hub.freebsd.org> <E0wrlaD-0000ZL-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoth Warner Losh on Fri, 25 July: : Excuse me? I've *NEVER* seen that statisic in the 10 years that I've : been on the net. Do you have some study that would back up this : claim? At best I think that many machines might not have globally : valid names, but they send their mail messages using globally valid : names. Many large companies will have hundreds of internal machines, : but they all go through one smart host that handles all the mail for : email on this list and others would not have a valid reply address, : which is only the case in << 1% of the mail I reply to. [Note: Moving to chat...] Um, I would point out that one wouldn't be on an Internet mailing list unless one were on the Internet. Most computers have nothing to do with the Internet. There are a large number of email facilities on mvs, vm, vines, netware, fidonet, uucp, appletalk, or what-have-you. My 'majority' figure may become a 'minority' in the not-to-distant future, but the I'm *guessing* that the majority of email-capable systems are still not Internetworked. Of course this depends on your definition of Internetworked, and of email-capable. I'm trying to use colloquial meanings here.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707251502.KAA04543>