🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1676@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>The time has come to address mail headers as well. In particular,
>the "Received:" header seems to me to be (a) longer than necessary
>(a site and date/time should be enough), and (b) not necessary
>at all when the mail is received from a local user (in which ...

The "Received:" header is useful for:

- checking the route mail travels and the time delays
- helping to check the authenticity of mail
- rebuilding a route for error messages when other means fail

This header should be added by a machine when it receives mail from another
machine (thus local mail should not have any "Received:" lines).  A mail user
interface should hide these lines normally, but should have a means of making
them visible when required.

The machine the header says it is received *from* should be calculated by the
receiving host by, say, a reverse lookup on the DoD Internet table given the
n.n.n.n address the mail connection originated from or, say, the UUCP system
name that was in use at the time of the transfer.  This is the basis of
authenticity checking.
-- 
EMAIL:	stephen@comp.lancs.ac.uk	| Post: University of Lancaster,
UUCP:	...!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!stephen	|	Department of Computing,
Phone:	+44 524 65201 Ext. 4120		|	Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK.
Project:Alvey ECLIPSE Distribution	|	LA1 4YR

In article <323@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> stephen@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Stephen J. Muir) writes:
> The machine the header says it is received *from* should be calculated by the
> receiving host by, say, a reverse lookup on the DoD Internet table given the
> n.n.n.n address the mail connection originated from or, say, the UUCP system
> name that was in use at the time of the transfer.  This is the basis of
> authenticity checking.

The ARPA/ethernet host name lookup is easy, and sendmail already does this.
But what about the uucp case?  How can sendmail find out the "system name
that was in use at the time of the transfer?"  If you know how to code this
in to sendmail, please let me know, cuz I haven't figured it out.  The sendmail
that we're running now (4.2BSD's version) doesn't do this at all.  I tried
figuring it out by looking at the argument passed to sendmail with the -f
flag, using the "last hop" part of the address, but now with domain-style
addresses being passed around via uucp, I've noticed that often this last
hop is some domain that we don't talk to at all.  Yipes!  Not much authenticity
there!  I ended up taking it out, since I'd rather say nothing than lie
(usually, anyway).

Suggestions?

-- 
Greg Paris ............................. gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (a UUCP domain)
{cci632,cbosgd,gatech,ihnp4,linus,mirror,necntc,uiucdcs,umcp-cs}!rayssd!gmp
................................... What is your present form of execution?

In article <811@xanth.UUCP> kyle@CS.ODU.EDU (kyle jones) writes:
>> The ARPA/ethernet host name lookup is easy, and sendmail already does this.
>> But what about the uucp case?  How can sendmail find out the "system name
>> that was in use at the time of the transfer?"
 ...
>If you have sources, a solution is to modify sendmail to accept (say)
>'-Rprotocol' and '-Sdomain' switches, which should define the 'r' and 's'
>macros to be 'protocol' and 'domain' respectively.  Then modify rmail to
>extract the hostname of the last hop from the "remote from host" part of the
>UUCP "From " line, and to pass this information to sendmail via the new
>command line switches.

The Honey Danber version of uuxqt puts the sending host name in the
UU_MACHINE environment variable.  This value has been authenticated
by UUCP and so if unforgeable (assuming that Honey Danber is
configured correctly).  The BSD4.3 version of UUCP probably has something
similar.  If it doesn't, maybe it should be added.

-- 
Matt Costello	<matt.costello@SanDiego.NCR.COM>
		{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!matt

In article <43258@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes:
> The simplest way to do it is to modify rmail.c. Here is a diff -c from
> the 4.3 bsd rmail.c. to what we are running.
> 
> ---rick

If you decide to modify your 4.2 BSD rmail in a similar manner, beware
that it will probably not work.  The line below from Rick's patch
is what aggravates an apparent bug in 4.2's sendmail.

>  		(void) sprintf(cmd, "exec %s -em -i -oMrUUCP -oMs%s.%s -f%s",

The two -oM options don't work; the second one is ignored.  To fix this,
you could get rid of the -oMrUUCP, since (at least in my configuration)
it wasn't used anyway, or if you have source, you could modify sendmail's
main.c where it calls setoption for the -o flag.  The line should
look like what follows.

		setoption(p[2], &p[3], FALSE, p[2] == 'M' ? FALSE : TRUE);

This change prevents the sticky flag from being set when setting a macro
value from the command line.  I made this change and all works fine.

-- 
Greg Paris ............................. gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (a UUCP domain)
{cci632,cbosgd,gatech,ihnp4,linus,mirror,necntc,uiucdcs,umcp-cs}!rayssd!gmp
................. People like you should not be allowed to start any fires.

   I agree completely with this. It seems that the .signatures were limited
to 4 lines yet I receive many mail messages that the headers far exceed the
body of the message. This seems like far too much increased traffic that is
generated by mailers. A couple of the latest messages contained 30 lines
of headers for ten lines of message - including the .signature !

                                              Charles F. Boykin
                                        {cuae2, ihnp4!killer!sysop