Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!uupsi!vmp!sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM!blilly.UUCP!balilly.UUCP!bruce
From: bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Which headers may Sendmail re-write?
Message-ID: <1991Jan19.191359.20458@blilly.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 91 19:13:59 GMT
References: <2784B595.F6A@tct.uucp> <1991Jan14.011111.370@blilly.UUCP> <279618AF.2EBA@tct.uucp>
Sender: news@blilly.UUCP (News Administrator)
Organization: Bruce Lilly, Flushing, NY
Lines: 38

In article <279618AF.2EBA@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>Is it disputed that the transformation from "dom.ain!user" to
>"localhost!dom.ain!user" is performed by many, if not most, sites
>that use Sendmail?

I can't speak for most sites which use sendmail, or even for many, but
the 3 hosts which I administer don't do that, and based on recent
postings, I don't believe that the sites at cis.ohio-state.edu do either.
I obviously haven't surveyed all sendmail sites to determine what
rewriting rules are in use, but I have only seen the transformation
described from a few sites (e.g. rutgers, which also does things to
addresses which defy description (although the term rabid has been
applied...)).

At my sites, "dom.ain!user" is converted to "user@dom.ain" in the headers,
and remains "dom.ain!user" in the envelope (for uucp delivery;
"user@dom.ain" for delivery via SMTP, as required by RFC's).  IMHO that's
the only reasonable thing to do*.

As for sites where the transformation you describe is made,
that's a problem with the *administrator(s)* at those sites, not with
sendmail--other software can also be configured to do the same, which I
believe is what old versions of rmail did.

If you're having problems with some site(s), why not send mail to the
postmaster(s) asking that he/they revise their software (which might or
might not be sendmail)?

*) For feeding mail to downstream uucp sites where rmail understands
DNS form and will make any necessary transformations to accomodate the
next site downstream, sending the envelope address as "user@dom.ain"
would also be reasonable. Lacking specific information about what a
downstream site's rmail will accept, and/or what transformations will
be performed on envelope addresses, the bangist form has the best
chance of success.
--
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM