Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!syd
From: syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: expanding reply address in 2.3
Message-ID: <1990Jun5.225613.15848@DSI.COM>
Date: 5 Jun 90 22:56:13 GMT
References: <2856@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Lines: 58

tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:

>I posted recently asking why when generating a reply address elm 2.3
>expanded a local to: recipient to recipient@fullhostname, when elm 2.2
>didn't do this and direct mail (via 'm') to a local user didn't get
>expanded either.  I got no reply on this group (though people mailed
>me to say they had the same "problem").
I replied to this message, but I forget if I posted my reply or
just mailed it, but here goes again:

The reason the is exactly as stated in the kludge alert:

          /*
           * KLUDGE ALERT - DANGER WILL ROBINSON
           * We can't just leave a bare login name as the return address,
           * or it will be alias-expanded.
           * So we qualify it with the current host name (and, maybe, domain).
           * Sigh.
           */

The problem is that the mailing address during a later step goes
past the alias processing code.

Here is the problem:

You have an alias a, that expands to abc!a, where abc is some other
system.  There is also a user a on your local system.

User a on your local system sends you a message and it is
"From: a", you reply and the reply is now a "To: a".  If we left
it a plain "To: a" it would then turn into an alias expansion
and go to "abc!a" not the local a.

However, local!a does not expand to an alias, so all is well.

>I'm confused as to why a bare name can't be left, and if it can't,
>then why isn't the bare name expanded when mailing using the 'm'
>option for "direct" mail.  Is the kludge needed ?

The m command does not need to do this because you want the alias
expansion for newly generated mail.

>Anyway, I've commented out the whole #ifdef .. #endif in the above
>code and I seem to have the 2.2 functionality again.  Will I get
>horrible side-effects ?
Nope, just the effect stated above, that a 'local' reply might go to
one of your aliases.  Now if you are sure that no local user names
will ever match a user or system alias, then that block of code
could safely be commented out.

What I don't remember any more, was whether the local system name
was supposed to get taken back off before we handed the message
off the the MTA or not....
-- 
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: (215) 947-9900
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd                        FAX:   (215) 938-0235