🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec15.154618.7378@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> There is absolutely nothing in the protocols, or in the behavior of
>'sendmail' that would prevent you sending out your email as:
>
>From: les@chinet.uucp
>To: someone@somewhere
>
>-----------------------
>Date: 10 BC.
>From: les@chinet.uucp
>To: someone@somewhere
>Subject: Whatever you feel like.
>
> The text of your message.
>
> ...............
>
> I guarantee that sendmail will not change the second set of 'headers'.  And

  Following this argument, NONE OF the headers are needed. I need only
get the argument to rmail/SMTP RCPT TO: right. 
  
  I have a question for Karl though (just to add some non-flame content
to my message ;-)
  If you are MX'ing for someone
for which you have a UUCP link with them, does it get turned into
some.where.com!user@ohio-state.edu? No right? 
  So if .UUCP went away, header munging would be a non-issue? 
UUCP would still be used as a transport agent though. 

  Assuming that the uux/rmail interface was deemed to be bad, and one
went the BSMTP route, would we then have lots of problems with 
the smart-host'ing being done (or have to do a massive coordination
effort), or would source routes suddenly become popular again? 
  I'm of the opinion that it is better to ship Unix without mail
and assume that they can figure out Configure and make and install
something, or to include a domain only version that also includes the
.com/.us/.ca/etc. registration forms (for turnkey systems.)

> Now what exactly is all this griping about?

  The simple desire to have From: lines left alone. If they MUST
be rewritten, have the decency to rename the old header or something.

-- 
   :!mcr!:            |  The postmaster never | - Pay attention only
   Michael Richardson |    resolves twice.    | to _MY_ opinions. -  
 HOME: mcr@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca + If that doesn't work, try:
 WORK: michael@fts.ocunix.on.ca   +  fts1!michael, mcr@doe.carleton.ca