From owner-freebsd-chat  Fri Jul 25 08:02:55 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA06892
          for chat-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA06871;
          Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from East.Sun.COM ([129.148.1.241]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id IAA07710; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:02:16 -0700
Received: from suneast.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id LAA24082; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:02:16 -0400
Received: from compound.east.sun.com by suneast.East.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA24175; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:02:15 -0400
Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.east.sun.com (8.8.6/8.7.3) id KAA04543; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:02:14 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:02:14 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM
Message-Id: <199707251502.KAA04543@compound.east.sun.com>
From: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: imp@rover.village.org
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing 
References: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com>
	<199707241422.HAA00957@hub.freebsd.org>
	<E0wrlaD-0000ZL-00@rover.village.org>
X-Face: O9M"E%K;(f-Go/XDxL+pCxI5<W_e*r7B8ojMD.5+qDgOp4/\gTQEgbOoBqf:Vtl*aW:<;9/
	UIVk'U^XhYg+v#r~*X<$Q=_ik@5:%E}pl]9|9|:]WLW8n:fLgg0~cfwWRBQxK/HSG0b1D/gljJC$qp
	b=HDF@+"H<|fXy`w#$8#6A"!F:>*gr[=FN@Y`cl1.Tn
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth Warner Losh on Fri, 25 July:
: Excuse me?  I've *NEVER* seen that statisic in the 10 years that I've
: been on the net.  Do you have some study that would back up this
: claim?  At best I think that many machines might not have globally
: valid names, but they send their mail messages using globally valid
: names.  Many large companies will have hundreds of internal machines,
: but they all go through one smart host that handles all the mail for
: email on this list and others would not have a valid reply address,
: which is only the case in << 1% of the mail I reply to.

[Note: Moving to chat...]

Um, I would point out that one wouldn't be on an Internet mailing list
unless one were on the Internet.  Most computers have nothing to do
with the Internet.  There are a large number of email facilities on
mvs, vm, vines, netware, fidonet, uucp, appletalk, or what-have-you.
My 'majority' figure may become a 'minority' in the not-to-distant
future, but the I'm *guessing* that the majority of email-capable
systems are still not Internetworked.  Of course this depends on your
definition of Internetworked, and of email-capable.  I'm trying to use
colloquial meanings here.