Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!decwrl!pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!jch
From: jch@hollie.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: Sendmail problem under Ultrix 4.1
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.075552.21470@hollie.rdg.dec.com>
Date: 23 Apr 91 07:55:52 GMT
References: <MIKE.91Apr22121239@apex.yorku.ca>
Sender: news@hollie.rdg.dec.com (Mr News)
Reply-To: jch@hollie.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 30


I don't know how this happens: ruleset four contains:

R$*<$+>$*	$1$2$3		defocus
R@$+:$+:$+	@$1,$2:$3	<route-addr> canonical
R@$+:$+		$@<@$1:$2>	route-addr needs <>

(this says, remove the angle brackets, fix up source-routed
addresses and put the angle brackets back for source routed
addresses).

Even if there is a spare pair of angle brackets on the way into
these rules, the first one would strip them off (in a strange order,
but it would strip them off).

The problem appears to be in the envelope of the message.
Taking a look at sendmail 5.65, I can see exactly the
same problem: I quote:

	smtpmessage("MAIL From: <%s>", m, buf);
and
	smtpmessage("RCPT To: <%s>", m, to->q_user);

By all means log an SPR, but be aware that you are likely
to get nested angle brackets from other MTAs, sigh.

-- 
John Haxby, Definitively Wrong.
Digital				<jch@wessex.rdg.dec.com>
Reading, England		<...!ukc!wessex!jch>