🚀 go-pugleaf

>|The one big problem with smail 2.x is that's not very RFC 822 compliant
>|and headers often escape unqualified.

bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes:
>	I'd appreciate it if you'd be a lot more
>	specific as to what non-RFC-822 compliance
>	there is in smail 2.5.  I'm not particularly
>	aware of any, and since there may be a new
>	release of smail 2.x, your comments might
>	serve more than just idle curiosity.

Well basically the big problem I had was that if you sent a message
and to a remore user "foo@bar.com" and a local one "ross", the local 
address wouldn't get the local hostname appended to it.  Often some
site further along the link would stick their own address there.

>	I will probably go to smail 3.1.x when I
>	install my ethernet however - I'm afraid to
>	install zmailer since I'm told the SysV port
>	relies on writing to /dev/kmem to implement
>	its security features...

Well that's just in my port of it to Xenix.  But don't knock it, it works.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!torag!zooid!ross					     db	 //