Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!dgcad!gary
From: gary@dgcad.sv.dg.com (Gary Bridgewater)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Sendmail/UUCP Header Rewrite Question
Message-ID: <655718491.7402@proa.sv.dg.com>
Date: 12 Oct 90 08:01:31 GMT
References: <1450@ernest.ti.com>
Organization: Data General SDD, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 29

In article <1450@ernest.ti.com> alan@ernest.ti.com (Alan Edmonds) writes:
>...
>S13
>R$+			$:$>5 $1			convert to old style
>#--R$*<@$*>$*		$@ $1<@$2>$3			don't mung! (?)

A mispelled, overly clever comment!                     ^^^^^^^^^^
"munge" is, however, sufficiently obscure that it should be changed - folks
who distribute these things please note.
What we have here is a commented out rewrite rule that is there to _stop_
you from suffixing domainized addresses - thus munging them.
Re-enable this line.

>R$=R!$+		$2				avoid redundancy
>R$+			$:$R!$1				stick on our UUCP name
>
>In ruleset S13, last rule inserts their site name in front of the address.
>Is this a "good" idea?  How do other sites handle this kind of situation?
>Why not delete the last rule (in S13) and be done with it?

This is a religious issue, in general (here comes the deluge) but under
no circumstance should you _ever_ add a !prefix to an "@" address.  Of
course, many mixed sites do this with a vengeance - or its equally
ugly counterpart - adding an "@" address to the end of a !path.
Either of these mis-re-writes tend to make bounced mail die quite nicely as
it tries to find its way back to the sender.
-- 
Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation, Sunnyvale California
gary@sv.dg.com or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad!gary
C++ - it's the right thing to do.