🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <600@vixie.UUCP> paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) writes:
>The various standards in place around the net (in RFC form) say: no.

After the Nth last time this was discussed (*sigh*), I tried to verify
this for a paper I was writing.  (I'm sorry: the paper is  s t i l l
being written.)  Various people, including Mark Horton (!), told me
that they couldn't find where this was said, either.  If this has
changed, and someone has found the citation, I'd really appreciate
hearing about it!

My opinion (sorry, but it hasn't been represented yet):

You're both right.  And you're both wrong.

Mail should be sent in such a way that it can be answered.  In the
best of all possible worlds, I actually agree that a domainist con-
struction is better than a pathist.  If all machines have some rule
determining that X@Y.OFFICE.GROUP.ORG is a valid address and means a
specific mail address on a specific machine, and they all know how to
get to it; great!  However, I have seen no sendmail configuration file
that even understands the above correctly; mailx of course doesn't;
and I'm afraid I haven't had the freedom to work with smail much.

[Note that:
Cw Y						# machine name
CD UUCP GROUP.ORG OFFICE.GROUP.ORG		# domains
...
R$+@$=w.$=D	$1@LOCAL	# name@host.domain -> name@LOCAL
does  n o t  (not, not!) match the above!  The address above is split
into  n i n e  different lexemes, seven after the '@'; and the rule
above only has  t h r e e  lexemes after the '@'.]

I've been using these rules of thumb.  If I'm sending between machines
that both know domains and both know each other, I use domains and
nothing else.  Similarly, machines passing mail in pure-domain form
should not alter pure-domain addresses.  (This can be hard to figure
out.  It's only really appliable when one has control over the entire
mail path.)  If I'm sending from a machine not registered in a domain
through a domain machine to a domain machine, I will modify the
address appropriately.  (E.g., hadron!jsdy -> hadron!jsdy@dtix.ARPA;
or joe@dt18.DT.MIL -> joe%dt18.DT.MIL@dtix.ARPA.)  This is surely
allowable; it also happens to be necessary.  If I'm sending between
or to machines that have no idea what domains are like, I will modify
the return addresses, so that mailers which rely on paths will work!
I dislike (detest, hate, loathe, revile) ">From_" lines, so all SysV
machines with which I work run my version of rmail that does things
"right"; that is, collapses "From_" and ">From_" lines as Mark H.
illustrated earlier.  This is especially helpful, as not all mail
agents and mailers (very few, near as I can tell) understand the
">From_" form.  [Well, this is, of course, the reason for my mild
distaste for it.]

One thing I am perplexed by is machines that modify To: and From: but
not Cc: .  This seems mighty odd to me, not to mention totally
confusing to all mail agent programs I've seen used.

Eventually, it should be worth while for (e.g., I can persuade) the
various folk I assist to put up smail and "real" domainism.  Until
then, there are too many machines coming up with UUCP only (or
something).

And i am rather glad that even the prominent domainists who have
said that they never modify From: lines really do when they send
me mail, out of courtesy (i assume); thus, i can send mail back
more easily.

	Joe Yao		jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)
	hadron!jsdy@{seismo.CSS.GOV,dtix.ARPA,decuac.DEC.COM}
{arinc,att,avatar,cos,decuac,dtix,ecogong,kcwc}!hadron!jsdy
     {netex,netxcom,rlgvax,seismo,smsdpg,sundc}!hadron!jsdy