Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write? Message-ID: <2781581A.6663@tct.uucp> Date: 2 Jan 91 03:48:42 GMT References: <277A64CD.4C4B@tct.uucp> <1990Dec31.190906.328@chinet.chi.il.us> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 40 According to les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell): >In article <277A64CD.4C4B@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>I still object to the rewriting of RFC822 addresses into bang paths. > >How would you handle the RFC822-legal path!user@domain syntax when >handing it to a uux-ed rmail? For the envelope (rmail argument), make it domain!path!user. For the header, *don't change it*. Remember the basic argument: the From: line is an RFC822 animal. Software that parses From: must therefore do so by the rules of RFC822, or by definition it's broken. >>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. > >Philosophically, I don't like any form of rerouting other than to the >specified "next-hop" host, but realistically it is probably better >to re-route to the right-most FQDN. That should only fail under >a couple of circumstances: (1) the user really wanted the specified >routing for testing or avoiding a known problem with the usual routing. Agreement 100% here, except that I'm slightly more willing to be guided by my philosophical view and by my desire to avoid problems under the given circumstance (1). I've therefore avoided the use of Rabid Rerouting in our mail transport. The only form of Rabid Rerouting performed at TCT is done in our mail user agent (Elm) and only at explicit user request (the header edit screen has a "domainize" command). I thus avoid the common fallacy that machine X knows better than person Y, which is always false for appropriate values of Y. (The value of X doesn't matter.) My point in requesting the cessation of u@d.m -> d.m!u rewriting is that even my own mild form of Rabid Rerouting wouldn't be needed if only RFC822 headers could get to my site without being mangled. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker