From:	MERC::"uunet!DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU!vmsnet-request" 25-APR-1992 20:38:40.41
To:	vmsnet@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	RE: UUCP and AT&T Mailers (Query)

I cannot speak for Jim Thompson on this, but I have worked with him on this
in the past. One of the reasons he can manage to swallow the mess AT&T mail
puts out is that we modified PMDF to handle it. I don't remember all the
details, but at a minimum we had to support (and generate) messages
with pure UUCP-style address throughout the header. There were a bunch of
other miscellaneous changes that were needed as well. Jim can probably fill
you in on them better than I can.
 
The fact of the matter is that AT&T mail is in complete violation of RFC976,
and does not conform to standard UUCP practices either. (I note in passing
that the only good thing you can say about AT&T mail is that it is better
than MCI mail, which violates even more standards with greater regularity.)
You can choose to adapt to AT&T practices; it is certain that AT&T is
unwilling to fix the problem themselves.
 
                                Ned