From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:44:03 PST
To: crys@eith.biostr.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Politics of Rmailers
Message-ID: <9301111556.AA03382@maggie.shearson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> From: Crys Rides <crys@eith.biostr.washington.edu>
> 
> >>>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 93 23:32:18 PST, tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble) said:
> 
> E.> 	 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 17:52:01 -0800
> E.> 	 From: uunet!netcom.com!norm (Norman Hardy)
> 
> E.> 	 I can imagine a system administrator choosing to require that
> E.> 	 all mail originating from his machine include a signature that 
> E.> 	 correctly identifies the local name of the sender.
> 
> E.> I can imagine it, but none exist.  This is mostly because the From:
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> E.> field is supplied by the mailer and satisfies that requirement,
> E.> whereas requiring things in teh body of the mail message goes against
> E.> the grain of how the systems are used.
> *Bzzzzt* Wrong answer, thank you for playing.  The public access bbs
> system running out of Chapel Hill, automatically appends the same signature
> to all outgoing messages, and other sites are considering the same measures.

Mr Rides;

Your rudeness is exceeded only by your apparent incapacity to read.

As has been stated, quite clearly, no one is doubting that such systems
exist. The "none exist" in the last paragraph refers to REASONS FOR THIS
PRACTICE, not to the number of sites practicing it.

As was said, the "From:" field satisfies the stated requirement without
the need for autosignatures. The notion of an automatic footer when automatic
headers exist already that satisfy the identification requirement is without
merit.

Perry