Path: utzoo!attcan!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: <276D0D6A.6581@tct.uucp> Date: 17 Dec 90 18:24:41 GMT References: <1990Dec11.130432.27684@mp.cs.niu.edu> <2766B2E7.276@tct.uucp> <1990Dec13.131236.25304@mp.cs.niu.edu> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 48 According to rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert): >In article <2766B2E7.276@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >> >>2. A message passing through your domain on its way to my domain >> should be left alone, without ANY modifications to the message >> AT ALL except for the envelope. >> > >Sure. And when I relay Internet mail to 'uucpnode', and a user on >'uucpnode' does a R(eply), my machine gets to relay a lot of the >uucpnode's local mail back to it, since that node doesn't understand >the form of address on the header so sends it to its forwarding relay >for interpretation. Assuming that the 'uucpnode' to which Mr. Rickert refers is a UUCP-only site that doesn't understand RFC822 addresses, then it is true by definition that an RFC822 address field will be unrepliable when it arrives at 'uucpnode.' However, the policy that Mr. Rickert supports -- pessimistically rewriting all mail headers for the greatest common denominator, namely, stock Unix /bin/mail -- disinfranchises all those UUCP sites who have registered domains under the Internet DNS. Furthermore, 'uucpnode' may not be the final destination of the message. It is not a good idea to assume anything about the final site based simply on the identity of the next hop in a bang path. I contend that rewriting "user@host.valid.domain" into "host.valid.domain!user" in the *header* is a Bad Thing because: 1. Any people who are exchanging mail with Internet sites had better understand RFC822 addresses, if only in their minds, or else they're not going to have much success anyway. 2. UUCP is only a transport. Sites which are fully compliant with all relevant Internet standards for E-Mail should not have their headers munged just because their mail is transported via UUCP. In other words, a site's choice of mail transport should not affect the address format. If unmunged mail headers result in bang-only sites having some problems with replying to mail, then I say: "Let them install smail." -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker