🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.mail.mush
Article #470

Re: mush vs X.400

#470
From: David S. Herron
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 1990 00:09
59 lines
2755 bytes
In article <1990Jul31.070020.21139@specialix.co.uk> jpp@specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) writes:
>fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Fletcher Mattox) writes:
>
>>We're starting to see addresses on the From: line like:
>
>>	/PN=whoever/O=foo/ADMD=telemail/C=us/@sprint.com
>
>>Mush wants to parse this address as a filename.  Whoops.
>
>You think you have problems, HDB uucp won't pass mail with 
>an address like this because it thinks / is a security problem !

So side-step UUCP

(is he gonna say the B-word??  Yeaaaah..)

BSMTP (the B-word) was invented over in BITNET-land for sidesteping
"stupid" "idiotic" design assumptions made by IBM in the RSCS protocols.
Namely that the obvious place to put the forward-address could
only hold 2 strings, each 8 characters long.  (We've had it easy
in the UUCP world guys..)

With BSMTP the long strings (forward & reverse addresses) are hidden
inside a file.  In BITNET the destination address for the file transfer
is the user-ID for a mail transport agent (MAILER@some-host-name).  On
UUCP it would work approximately the same..  RFC-976 says to treat
BSMTP mail as normal rmail stuff but headed to a user-ID of 'a!b!c!...!b-smtp'.
(note the `-').  That's probably a good enough way to do it..

You avoid all sorts of problems by hiding the difficult addresses
inside the file.  The shell command-lines can't get to it for instance
and strip away quoting.

FYI, a BSMTP file looks like

	HELO <domain name>
	MAIL FROM:<user@some.domain.name>
	RCPT TO:<user@some.where.else>
	RCPT TO:<user-2@other.some.where.else>
		...
	DATA
		RFC-822 message body
	.
	QUIT

And, finally, I have a program in mod.sources (comp.sources.unix) archives
for decoding BSMTP files and passing the contents on to the local mail
system.  It's meant for MMDF sites, but can also be used by sendmail
sites and sites which only have /bin/mail.  (all from the same binary too...)

>Arrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh,  Why do the CCITT have to make things
>so hard ...

Because the old protocols we're used to lack a number of Significant Features??
-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF weenie, <david@twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!
Technical Details
Message-ID: <7697@gollum.twg.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!twg.com!david
References: <10682@cs.utexas.edu> <1990Jul31.070020.21139@specialix.co.uk>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!twg.com!david
From: david@twg.com (David S. Herron)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: mush vs X.400
Message-ID: <7697@gollum.twg.com>
Date: 5 Aug 90 00:09:36 GMT
References: <10682@cs.utexas.edu> <1990Jul31.070020.21139@specialix.co.uk>
Reply-To: david@twg.com (David S. Herron)
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 59