Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!cns!jf From: jf@ap.co.umist.ac.uk (John Forrest) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write? Message-ID: <1991Jan4.183044.20627@cns.umist.ac.uk> Date: 4 Jan 91 18:30:44 GMT References: <277FE143.513F@tct.uucp> <75110378@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Sender: usenet@cns.umist.ac.uk (News System) Organization: comp Lines: 51 In article <75110378@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >What I don't like about the rewriting rule where > > sitea!siteb!sitec!dom.ain!user > >becomes simply > > user@dom.ain > >is the assumption that, on the other side of all those site[abc] nodes, >"dom.ain" really means what we think it means! Maybe "sitec" is a >gateway to SiberiaNet and 'ti.com' really means Trans-Irkutsk Commune >or something! > >In this sense RFC976 and rabid rerouting could make strange bedfellows. > >Does a dotted sitename automatically have to conform to the One True DNS >or else forfeit legal mention in a UUCP path? The messages under this title are getting more and more bizarre. I write from somewhere where domain names are normal and UUCP the exception. Basically, UUCP names rely on flat naming scheme, and either world wide maps or explicit routes. Domain based schemes rely on knowing where to throw stuff for non-local names - the advantage being that if you see something like inria.fr at least you know what country it is in. Given a name like site.uucp it might as well be on the moon. This is where domain addressing scores, and is why everyone should use it. Of course, the new X400 has through another spanner in the works, but everyone should use it. As far as "ti.com" being in the Soviet Union - "com" is taken a commercial outfit (in the USA or with a states parent), and the rest of us use country abbreviations. Now, as far as being a standard this is very much a de facto one - its in an RFC somewhere, but I'm not aware of their validy under international law. However, people do follow it, under the banner "if you don't it won't work". Of course, there are problems where networks get connections, but these just have to be solved - it is surely no worse than UUCP abbiguities. Back to the original point, when should sendmail munge these headers. As someone has already said, it needs to to ensure that the header is meaningful to the destination host. Faced with a domain, it shouldn't do (in my opinion) if it knows the destination host understands the domain addresses - no reason why it necessarily shouldn't, even with UUCP mail being used. However, if it is not sure, it is better to fix the headers. John Forrest Dept of Computation UMIST.