Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!fts1!michael
From: michael@fts1.uucp (Michael Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: The algorithm for rewriting rules
Message-ID: <1990Jun5.173609.15672@fts1.uucp>
Date: 5 Jun 90 17:36:09 GMT
References: <1990May31.152505.28721@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Organization: Fountain Technical Services, Ottawa, ON
Lines: 36

In article <1990May31.152505.28721@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
> ---> 3 -------> 0 ----> resolved address
>
>                      /---> 1 ---> S ---\
>    	              |			|
> ---> 3 ----->  D  ---|			|---> 4 ----> Message
>		      |			|
>                      \---> 2 ---> R ---/

  My experience with ruleset 3 is that an address like:

   Joe Blow <jb@foo.bar.com>

   is turned into:
   jb<@foo.bar.com>

   In the case of the To:/From: addresses, obviously we want to 
keep the "comment" [striping out () comments and replacing them
is fairly easy] intact, while still rewriting the address portion.
This is confounded by the existance of multiple addresses.
  Does/should the rewriting preserve these comment strings?
Or is it this the reason that (Person' Name) is still used a lot?
(Is that even preserved?)
  The reason I ask rather than look at the source, is that I'd like
to know the theory here, rather than the current implementation.

>	My documentation is not clear on whether the envelope's recipient
>	or the header's To: is used to deliver the message.

  The 'resolved address' is used to deliver the message.

-- 
   :!mcr!:               | Tellement de lettres, si peu de temps.
   Michael Richardson    |  If Meech passes, no one will understand that.
 Play: mcr@julie.UUCP Work: michael@fts1.UUCP Fido: 1:163/109.10 1:163/138
    Amiga----^     - Pay attention only to _MY_ opinions. -   ^--Amiga--^