From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jul 25 07:43:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA05864
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 07:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA05855
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 07:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] 
	by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 1.60 #1)
	id 0wrlaD-0000ZL-00; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:43:05 -0600
To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing 
Cc: current@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:01:48 CDT."
		<199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> 
References: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com>  <199707241422.HAA00957@hub.freebsd.org> 
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:43:04 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@rover.village.org>
Message-Id: <E0wrlaD-0000ZL-00@rover.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com> Tony Kimball writes:
: I beg to differ.  Most machines which may validly receive email do *not*
: have valid hostnames.  Using the majority-minority rule, *you* lose.
: That's reality.  

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
them.  They have been doing this for years, otherwise a majority of
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.

Warner