[Postmaster%TRINCC.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU: Undeliverable mail]


John A. Shriver (jas@monk.proteon.com)
Mon, 29 Feb 88 08:38:42 EST


One more of several complaints about One more of several complaints about SHAVER@TRINCC.
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Will somebody please terminate the offending mailer. Bugs causing
mail to buonce to lists should be fixed rapidly...

Received: by monk.proteon.com; Fri, 26 Feb 88 20:07:34 EST
Message-Id: <8802270107.AA03720@monk.proteon.com>
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by SRI-NIC.ARPA with TCP; Fri 26 Feb 88
 10:20:44-PST
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU ; Fri, 26 Feb 88 13:17:44 EST
X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Received: from trincc.bitnet (smtpuser) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Mailer X1.25) with
 BSMTP id 5199; Fri, 26 Feb 88 12:54:30 EST
Received: from JNET-DAEMON by trincc.bitnet; Fri, 26 Feb 88 12:49 EST
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 88 12:49 EST
From: The Mail Server <Postmaster%TRINCC.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Undeliverable mail
To: TCP-IP@SRI-NIC.ARPA

Message had a bad or missing To address.
The entire text of the message follows:

Received: From MARIST(MAILER) by TRINCC with RSCS id 2610 for Received: From MARIST(MAILER) by TRINCC with RSCS id 2610 for SHAVER@TRINCC;
 Fri, 26-FEB-1988 12:49 EST
Received: by MARIST (Mailer X1.25) id 2601; Fri, 26 Feb 88 12:49:51 EST
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 88 10:37:10 MST
From: STJOHNS@SRI-NIC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Exchanging serial numbers
Sender: ARPA TCP-IP Discussion Redistribution <Sender: ARPA TCP-IP Discussion Redistribution <TCPIP-L@MARIST>
To: JERRY SHAVER <To: JERRY SHAVER <SHAVER@TRINCC>
Reply-to: TCP-IP@SRI-NIC.ARPA
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was TCPIP-L@BYUADMIN

Pardon me for saying this, but this is one of the sorriest
schemes I've ever heard about. The only place this would be
applicable is at the low end (PC's) as larger system normally
bundle this software in their distribution. And businesses that
purchase larger systems generally aren't going to risk the
penalties for license violation for those system.

Now take it a little further. The PC's don't generally talk to
each other, so who's going to know if you copy the software? In
the absolute worst case, the two systems can use an intermediary
to communicate.

Also, how do you deal with site license where you provide masters
and let them make the copies?

Your best bet is to trust your customers, make good software, and
price it competatively.

Mike



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:41:30 GMT