Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:13:59 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I would buy that Daniel, except that I myself had Netcom at one point in
time, and spent hours on the phone with them trying different configurations
and none of them seemed to fix the problem.
At 07:02 PM 1/24/97 GMT, you wrote:
>Les Moskowitz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>I haven't received a response from him yet, but if I got such an
>>explanation, my reaction would be "why not?"
>
>Because it's interpreted by a computer, not a person. What's the
>difference between [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask]
>Who knows? Maybe one is John and the other is Jim.
>
>Often the solution is to properly configure the E-mail sofware. It may
>be that the person configured his software to say that his E-mail
>address was "jsmith" instead of "[log in to unmask]". When a message goes
>out, the host E-mail software, seeing that the "From" address is not
>fully qualified, changes it to reflect the name of the computer that
>happened to answer the phone when jsmith called it. It might not have
>touched the From address at all had it been fully qualified from the
>start.
>
>--
>Daniel
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
|
|
|