anonymous contact ser

[Johan Helsingius]

"M. Stirner" <M..Stirner at f0.n0.z1.fidonet.org>:

>  Uu> Here's why. I can't reply directly to your message, as some gateway on
>  Uu> the way barfs on the ".." in your name. This seems to come and go.
>  Uu> This is probably also what screws up anon.penet.fi.
> 
> This is extremely interesting!  This "problem" was supposedly fixed some
> time ago, but this is why I have alternate accounts elsewhere with more
> common names.   In any event, I will pass this information along to the
> proper persons.

Well, having ".." in your username is *not* a good idea for most mail
systems!

> Yes, the zeros are wrong & were inserted by software out of my control.
> I also have different addresses, true enough, but there is no f0.n0.z1
> in fido; that address is a software error.  I suspect it'll be on this
> message, too.

Yeah. This is one of my pet peeves. PEOPLE WHO SEND OUT STUFF ON THE NET
WITH NON-REPLYABLE FROM ADDRESSES SHOULD BE FORCED TO READ REC.HUMOR FOR
A MONTH!

So there!

> STILL....the problem I have is not addressed:  I cannot make a
> multi-line header (as in the required "X-Anon-Password: password" line)
> work through this UUCP gate, as far as I can tell.

> I cannot use password
> header lines unless anon.penet.fi can handle having blank lines between
> the header fields:

It can handle empty lines betwen the header proper and the X-Anon stuff,
but not in between the X-Anon lines.

> The above header will pass the UUCP gate here.  Without the blank lines,
> the header gets grunged after the To: anon at anon.penet.fi line.

What brain-damaged (excuse the expression) gateway software are you using?


	Julf