Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitsh
From: iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Thanks (was Re: Mail problem KA9Q->Interactive/386 Unix)
Message-ID: <1856@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 25 May 90 08:35:08 GMT
References: <1833@cybaswan.UUCP> <23445@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1990May21.142527.7975@ico.isc.com>
Reply-To: iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology
Lines: 20

My thanks to all those who contributed to the KA9Q - ISC Unix mail query.
I wasn't expecting to hear directly from karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) or
dougm@ico.ISC.COM (Doug McCallum), but their comments add a huge credibility
to the answer.

Now at least I understand what's happening (i.e it's a bug is BSD 5.61 Sendmail
and earlier) though the question "when's this going to get fixed" remains.
For instance, will ISC fix sendmail autonomously or is there a policy of
doing whatever BSD does regardless of the obvious bugs?

I have often wondered why 'sendmail' acts as the SMTP daemon at all. Surely
'sendmail' is a *router*, and should not be concerned with the physical act
of getting mail into and out of the machine? After all, 'sendmail' doesn't
handle UUCP mail, that comes in through 'uucico' which just spools it for
sendmail to route later. Why is SMTP different?

Steve                                             |  WALES: "Land of Song
iiitsh@pyr.swan.ac.uk                             |   and Rugby^H^H^H^H^H
..or in Britain, where we drive on the other side:|    Ice Hockey"
iiitsh@uk.ac.swan.pyr                             |