Re: smail vs. sendmail

Article View: comp.mail.sendmail

Article #3074

Back to comp.mail.sendmail Previous Next

#3074

From: Bill Wisner
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1989 22:09

11 lines
1036 bytes

Two points:

Reply-To: and In-Reply-To: lines are a function of the user agent, not the
delivery agent. Specifically, it is the user agent that must insert an
In-Reply-To: header when a message is replied to, and it is the user agent
that must notice a Reply-To: line and use it to construct an address to
reply to.

Smail3 is RFC822 conformant and munges Cc: lines on outbound mail correctly.
A major goal of the authors is to make it into a complete plug-in replacement
for sendmail, so when it is released you should have little trouble.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <6693@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!wisner

References: <378@ispi.UUCP> <6918@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> <6632@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <391@atcmpe.UUCP> <398@atcmpe.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!wisner
From: wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.uucp,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: smail vs. sendmail
Message-ID: <6693@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 6 Jan 89 22:09:06 GMT
References: <378@ispi.UUCP> <6918@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> <6632@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <391@atcmpe.UUCP> <398@atcmpe.UUCP>
Reply-To: wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner)
Organization: HASA
Lines: 11

Reply to Parent Message