Article View: comp.mail.misc
Article #2461Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write?
From: Chip Salzenberg
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 18:24
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 18:24
48 lines
2719 bytes
2719 bytes
According to rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert):
>In article <2766B2E7.276@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>
>>2. A message passing through your domain on its way to my domain
>> should be left alone, without ANY modifications to the message
>> AT ALL except for the envelope.
>>
>
>Sure. And when I relay Internet mail to 'uucpnode', and a user on
>'uucpnode' does a R(eply), my machine gets to relay a lot of the
>uucpnode's local mail back to it, since that node doesn't understand
>the form of address on the header so sends it to its forwarding relay
>for interpretation.
Assuming that the 'uucpnode' to which Mr. Rickert refers is a
UUCP-only site that doesn't understand RFC822 addresses, then it is
true by definition that an RFC822 address field will be unrepliable
when it arrives at 'uucpnode.'
However, the policy that Mr. Rickert supports -- pessimistically
rewriting all mail headers for the greatest common denominator,
namely, stock Unix /bin/mail -- disinfranchises all those UUCP sites
who have registered domains under the Internet DNS.
Furthermore, 'uucpnode' may not be the final destination of the
message. It is not a good idea to assume anything about the final
site based simply on the identity of the next hop in a bang path.
I contend that rewriting "user@host.valid.domain" into
"host.valid.domain!user" in the *header* is a Bad Thing because:
1. Any people who are exchanging mail with Internet sites had
better understand RFC822 addresses, if only in their minds,
or else they're not going to have much success anyway.
2. UUCP is only a transport. Sites which are fully compliant with
all relevant Internet standards for E-Mail should not have their
headers munged just because their mail is transported via UUCP.
In other words, a site's choice of mail transport should not affect
the address format.
If unmunged mail headers result in bang-only sites having some
problems with replying to mail, then I say: "Let them install smail."
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
"Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..."
-- Bruce Becker
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<276D0D6A.6581@tct.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chipReferences:
<1990Dec11.130432.27684@mp.cs.niu.edu> <2766B2E7.276@tct.uucp> <1990Dec13.131236.25304@mp.cs.niu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write? Message-ID: <276D0D6A.6581@tct.uucp> Date: 17 Dec 90 18:24:41 GMT References: <1990Dec11.130432.27684@mp.cs.niu.edu> <2766B2E7.276@tct.uucp> <1990Dec13.131236.25304@mp.cs.niu.edu> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 48