Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!karl_kleinpaste
From: karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write?
Message-ID: <KARL.90Dec26132215@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 90 18:22:15 GMT
References: <1990Dec18.002714.28858@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State Computer Science
Lines: 43

mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca writes:
     I have a question for Karl though (just to add some non-flame content
   to my message ;-)
     If you are MX'ing for someone
   for which you have a UUCP link with them, does it get turned into
   some.where.com!user@ohio-state.edu? No right? 
     So if .UUCP went away, header munging would be a non-issue? 
   UUCP would still be used as a transport agent though. 
     Assuming that the uux/rmail interface was deemed to be bad, and one
   went the BSMTP route, would we then have lots of problems with 
   the smart-host'ing being done (or have to do a massive coordination
   effort), or would source routes suddenly become popular again? 

I've read this note about 5 times in as many days, trying to figure
out what direction you're going or what specific point you're trying
to make.  I can't figure it out.  That's not an attempt to be rude or
flame; I guess I'm just feeling extraordinarily dense about the
question you're asking -- I can't feel it out.

Anyone for whom I MX, who by definition generates RFC822 headers, gets
their RFC822 headers left intact, no molestation whatever.  Anything
that's RFC-compliant is untouched, no matter what the origin:  An
RFC-compliant To: line with From: local-dumb-uucp-host!username gets
the To: left alone while the From: may be hacked somewhat.

As far as my configuration is concerned, .uucp has almost entirely
gone away, because it recognizes u@h.uucp just long enough to turn it
into h!u.  I don't see that header munging has become a non-issue as a
result.

As for BSMTP, I can contain the same semantic content in uux/rmail as
I can in a BSMTP package.  In fact, I do it, for CompuServe -- the
final transport involves a modified BSMTP envelope which is understood
on the CServe side, even though the queueing to CServe was done by
uux/rmail.  There is no problem from my perspective with either the
BSMTP or uux/rmail transport interface.  I don't see any relationship
to questions of source routes.

Really, I don't know what question/problem you were getting at here.

Am I just yet more dense than usual?

--karl