On Thu, 11  Feb 1993 21:20:26 CST  Natalie Maynor <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>I assume  this wouldn't cause any  problems for people at  bitnet sites,
>would it? I  vaguely remember seeing something somewhere on  the net one
>time from a  bitnet user claiming that he/she couldn't  send to internet
>addresses. I found that rather odd (which is the main reason it stuck in
>my memory, albeit vaguely). The large majority of active participants on
>WORDS-L  use internet  addresses, but  there are  a few  who use  bitnet
>addresses.
 
Many BITNET  sites do not have  RFC822 mail software. It's  sad, but it's
how things are. Lazy or understaffed  computing centres point at the CREN
bylaws/charter/rules and ask where it says they have to run a mailer, and
it doesn't say so anywhere, so they go on their merry way.
 
In order for an Internet user not to be able to reply to mail coming from
BITNET with .BITNET addresses, you need  a badly screwed up mail gateway.
All the  official (INTERBIT)  gateways rewrite the  headers to  make them
repliable.  It  is  important  to  fix gateways  which  do  not  generate
repliable headers, because they are a disservice to the community. If the
only way  to fix them is  to delete them, then  so be it: mail  will just
flow on to the nearest INTERBIT and be properly gatewayed.
 
The bottom line  is that you have  hundreds of nodes which  can't talk to
Internet addresses (a misdemeanour if you want, but not a serious crime),
and a small amount of broken gateways which don't do their job when there
are about 40 working, freely accessible gateways that can do it properly.
In  this  particular case  the  gateway  is  local  and only  affect  the
university's machine, so that is entirely their problem.
 
  Eric