Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!karl_kleinpaste From: karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: RFC-compliant UUCP mail Message-ID: Date: 27 Jul 90 13:58:06 GMT References: <1990Jul26.190236.17854@DRD.Com> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Distribution: na Organization: Ohio State Computer Science Lines: 41 mark@DRD.Com writes: We're an MX served uucp-only site. I note that when mail originated from here arrives at some recipient, transported via the good graces of our local friendly neighborhood internet gateway, the headers look like: From drd!DRD.Com!user (is this the From_ referred to above?) From: user@DRD.Com Who's responsible for this? Did my sendmail re-write it (how do I tell)? Is it likely my internet gateway did it? I get a lot of mail bounced back to me especially from vm sites (griping that the From_ header doesn't have an FQDN in it). You are probably responsible for half of it, and your gateway the other half. You can see how things look if you send some mail, su, and then go look in the UUCP queue toward your MX host. You will probably find that the D.* file contains From DRD.Com!user remote from drd From: user@DRD.Com and rmail on the MX host will turn around the first line to drd!DRD.Com!user. That's almost certainly where it comes from. This is normal and correct. As for bounced mail from some sites due to lack of FQDN is concerned, that's the fault of your MX host. As an SMTP-capable site, it is their responsibility to send all addresses leaving their site via SMTP in local-part@FQDN format. This means that their [IPC] mailer (Mtcp or Msmtp or whatever they're calling it) probably needs rules something like this, as part of "S=xx,R=xx" in the mailer definition: R$*@$* $@$1@$2 already @ified, so leave alone R$+ $@$1@$D Add "@my-d" for sanity This leaves things alone which are already in local-part@FQDN format, and adds the MX host's FQDN to things not already in that format. Small plug: If the MX host were Domain Absolutist, then a trio of rules I've described before would have already taken care of this problem. --karl