🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <208@frcs.UUCP> paul@frcs.UUCP (Paul Nash) writes:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>The effect on the headers is roughly as follows (`gatebox' is the
>[ficticious] `sendmail' pervert):
>
>	incoming			outgoing
>	
>	To: user@toaster		To: toaster!user@gatebox
>	From: me@tinytoy		From: tinytoy!me@gatebox
>
>[ ... ]
>
>I have tried digging through RFC822, but it has cast no light on
>the subject.  My gut feel, though, is that each mailer should only
>rewrite the `Path:' field (and add a fifteen-line `Received:' field).
>The rest should surely be left alone (after all, _I_ know who I am).
>Are there any Mail Gurus out there who can elighten us?

The applicable RFC's (including 822) require that addresses on the
internet must be in domain form (not ! paths), and that fully-qualified
domains be used.

So, if the ficticous ``gatebox'' is really something like ``foo.bar.com'',
then what is being done is correct if the mail is likely to enter the
Internet from that system. (systems acting as gateways between the
Internet and non-Internet systems, such as the uucp network, are required
to translate those ``foreign'' address syntaxes into RFC-compliant forms
when gatewaying onto the Internet)  If it's ``foo.bar.com'' but the mail
isn't being gatewayed onto the Internet, the changes are unnecessary but
harmless. Finally if ``gatebox'' is some form other than the domain naming
system, such as a uucp host name, then the change accomplishes nothing.
(user@toaster is not a valid RFC822 address because ``toaster'' is not a
fully-qualified domain name; presumably it is a uucp host name)

--
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM