Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!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: <277A64CD.4C4B@tct.uucp> Date: 27 Dec 90 21:17:01 GMT References: <1990Dec21.193938.29940@chinet.chi.il.us> <27763742.4907@tct.uucp> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 58 According to lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot): >chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>In any case, it is *usually* true here that replies >>should go a different route, for these reasons: >> 1. Group replies. >> 2. Avoiding unreliable sites. >> 3. Avoiding rabid rerouters (rutgers and bionet). >> 4. Avoiding Mail Header Mungers From Hell (apple.com). >> 5. Avoiding pessimal paths generated by sites that aren't >> using up-to-date maps. > >(3) and (4) are just plain silly, if they get your mail to where it >has to go ... If it makes you feel better, consider (3) and (4) a personal prejudice toward control of the routing of my own site's mail. In any case, the importance of (1), (2) and (5) is undeniable. Thus I still object to the rewriting of RFC822 addresses into bang paths. >>Thus, to get back to our original subject, it is Evil and Rude to mung >>an RFC822 address from user@valid.domain into valid.domain!user, >>because such munging renders impossible the *correct* handling of >>replies for RFC822-aware but UUCP-only sites. > >Seriously, your mail will always be replyable under the RFC 976 >method. This is *NOT* true under your scheme. I do not consider a bang path through unreliable and/or pessimal links to be "replyable." I wouldn't ever use such a path, nor do I appreciate any site's attempt to impose it on me. Yet that is the evident intent of RFC822-to-bang-path header munging. >Most people care about whether or not they will be able to reply to >mail, not whether it will go through a path optimizer. To borrow >from your hyperbole, it is evil and rude to make mail unreplyable. ("Path optimizer"?! That's one of the better euphemisms I've heard for "rabid rerouter." Your idea of optimal and mine may not agree.) The replyability of an RFC822 address cannot be improved by rewriting it into a bang path. Replyability most certainly can be degraded by such a transformation, however, as intermediate sites notice the bang format and (sometimes) prepend their own names, resulting in a bang path which is often incomplete or non-optimal. >The real question is whether information is lost. The answer to that >question based on RFC 1123 is NO (there used to be one exception). I agree that it is usually possible to determine the original RFC822 address given only a bang path a la RFC976. Information loss is not the only issue, however. In the address "bang!path!dom.ain!user", the _added_ information ("bang!path") is the problem, because it is very often an incomplete, pessimal or unreliable route. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker