Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!chip From: chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: is uunet breaking your headers? Message-ID: <1274@chinacat.Unicom.COM> Date: 26 May 90 22:31:01 GMT References: <8955@gouda.quad.com> <13952@ucsd.Edu> Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX Lines: 43 In article <13952@ucsd.Edu> brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >I don't know why I'm putting my foot into this one, but.... I'm glad you did. One of the things I'm assuming is that most dumb (uucp) sites are going to use From_ to route a return message while a smart site is going to use From:. My thinking is that if sites would leave From: alone and update From_, then things would work. Dumb sites would have a From_ with a full path back to the sender, and smart sites would have an untarnished From: to work with. Just as you have sites saying "@ doesn't work in uucp, I'll make it !", there are sites which say "! isn't RFC822, I'll make it @". Then you have the added dimension of complexity of what sites do with '!' in From:, some add their name, others don't. Everybody has their own idea of what to do with From:, each arguable in its own right, but all ending up in a conglomeration of gibberish. >Gateway sites which want to go to the trouble of also supporting uucp >"smart" hosts could have a way to leave the From [From:? -chip] lines >alone, on the declaration that the destination can handle it. But they >shouldn't DEFAULT that way. That's what I disagree with, but I might be confused in thinking that dumb uucp mailers are using From_ instead of From: to route replies. If so, please do correct me. In any case, '@' addressing is a good thing, as evidenced by the success of the UUCP Project. We should strive to support it, not hobble it. Even if munging is the correct default, it not should be done as secretively as uunet does. It was a surprise to find a "smart hosts" list exists, and even*after*requesting to be put on the list I'm still getting my incoming From:'s munged. That doesn't cause a problem, since the result is invariably a usable "uunet!host.domain!user", but with munging discression so difficult to achieve, I'm worried about what's happening to my outgoing stuff. Some of us uucp sites do take pains to try to maintain sanity in our local mail system, and this should be encouraged. -- Chip Rosenthal | You aren't some icon carved out chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM | of soap, sent down here to clean Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | up my reputation. -John Hiatt