Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write? Message-ID: <276D13B4.6732@tct.uucp> Date: 17 Dec 90 18:51:32 GMT References: <1990Dec14.064837.8996@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> <1990Dec14.174541.14252@Think.COM> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 26 According to barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin): > To: foo!bar!baz!user1, user2@quux.dom.ain > >Further, assume the baz system is on the UUCP network, so only understands >UUCP bang-paths ... The primary fallacy in this line of reasoning is the assumption that a site reachable via UUCP cannot deal with RFC822 addresses. >Sendmail is an application-level protocol-translating gateway. There >wouldn't be much controversy over an SMTP<->X.400 gateway munging headers; >it's an obvious part of the job. Why do you expect less of a UUCP<->SMTP >gateway? Because UUCP is just a transport. It doesn't have its own address format. Common implementations of mail over UUCP use the bang path as an envelope format, but the From:, To:, etc. lines can all be RFC822-compliant without any tribble -- er, trouble -- at all. Yes, bang paths in headers must be domainized before they are allowed to propagate across the Internet. But RFC822 messages need no munging at all to be propagated via UUCP. None at all. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker