Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: The algorithm for rewriting rules Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 90 17:32:40 GMT References: <1990May31.152505.28721@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <1990Jun5.173609.15672@fts1.uucp> Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY Lines: 27 In-reply-to: michael@fts1.uucp's message of 5 Jun 90 17:36:09 GMT In article <1990Jun5.173609.15672@fts1.uucp> michael@fts1.uucp (Michael Richardson) writes: 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?) As far as I can tell from reading the source, the person's name isn't even passed to the rewriting rules. Sendmail fetches the address, strips out the comments, passes it to the rewriting rules, and then pastes it back from whence it came. Having said this, I've taken out the "cruft" rule that I referred to earlier, and now I see addresses of the form: Russ.Nelson.nelson@ftp.ecs.clarkson.edu from which I would guess that sendmail *doesn't* strip out all the comments. However, it *does* preserve the comments. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems