>> I understand you are still investigating, but to be blunt about it:
>> if Hexoncorp's mail software can't be configured to conform to the
>> RFC's then it shouldn't be connected to the Internet.
>>
>> The original reference implementation paid for by DARPA is available
>> for free in the form of NetBSD and FreeBSD.  Both of them run on standard
>> PC hardware, and NetBSD will run on almost anything.  Given their
>> existence why should you pay money to Hexoncorp for something that
>> doesn't work (if it really doesn't)?
>
>Mr. Hotz:
>
>Thank you for your feedback. I'm afraid that shutting down our Internet
>mail is not a suggestion I wish to take to my manager. FirstClass
>doesn't run in a UNIX environment, and our users demand FirstClass.
>
>It seems to me that this problem is easily solved by the user who gets
>the error message forwarding it to the mailing list administrator. I'm
>sorry if this inconveniences you.
>
>
>Alex von Thorn, Online Support
>TotalNet Inc. (Magic Online)
>reply to: avt@total.net, support@magic.ca

The real inconvenience is in figuring out why I got the message in the
first place.  It's obvious that it indicates a malfunction of somebody's
mail software, but it took a bit of study to figure out what my connection
to your former customer was since I had never heard of either him or your
company or any of your company's aliases.  I also never received a reply of
any kind by responding to the notices you sent.  Not only should you take
proper note of the reply to addresses in mail you receive, but you owe it
to us to provide a meaningful reply address in the mail you send ESPECIALLY
ON MAIL YOU SEND AUTOMATICALLY.

Once I figured out that I wasn't being harassed by some bored student and
that it was the copy of my message that was sent to the port-mac68 mailing
list which generated the notices I got from your company then I agree the
final step is easy.  I presume you are smart enough to see how that
suggestion makes you appear.

If you had read the article I told you about in the October issue of
SunExpert you would know that your response is exactly the attitude
initially taken by Compuserve.  Taking that attitude will result in many
mailing list maintainers refusing to allow your custommers to subscribe to
their lists (even if the maintainer of port-mac68k@netbsd.org does not
become one of them).

Since Compuserve has decided to rewrite their mail software rather than
lose customers I expect that eventually you will find that you must do the
same, regardless of any actions of mine.

I am manually sending this message to the destinations on the reply to line
in your signature since I presume you are currently using software which is
incapable of putting it in an RFC 822 header line instead.

Note to the port-mac68k list:  I've done my part.  If someone else wants to
do a traceroute and complain to their service provider feel free.

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu