🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1692@umix.cc.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes:
>yeah, that's a small problem with sendmail: as delivered, it doesn't
>allow you to run arbitrary programs/scripts on addresses.  frankly,
>many people find it a lot easier to munge headers in c or sh than in
>sendmail's rule language, possibly the most brain-damaged language ever
>invented, yes, rob, even worse than postscript.

Agreed. The language is primitive and when you first start looking at it,
it looks impossible. But you can do a lot with it. The ability to run
arbitrary programs/scripts on addresses would be nice to have. But it might not
be necessary if we could agree to a real separation of concerns between UA
and MTA.

>i suppose it's possible to make the local mailer a router that looks at
>the address and passes the message back to sendmail ... maybe not.

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible. I just don't think it's
desirable. I've always been taught that one should separate concerns as well
as possible; i.e., write well-defined modules that cooperate across clear
interfaces. There's enough ``intelligence" in local mailers now.

>
>i've seen sendmail hacks (from waterloo?) that let rewrite rules munge
>addresses with $>program.
>
>	peter

Read:

	Mail Processing at UIUC, Report No. UIUCDCS-R-86-1289

According to that document, this was first done by Gary Murakami at AT&T.

							---torben