Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 beta 4/12/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.unix
Subject: Re: From:, Mail, and sendmail
Message-ID: <2100@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 20:05:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.2100
Posted: Thu Jul 12 20:05:55 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jul-84 00:11:52 EDT
References: <67@amd.UUCP> <327@uwvax.ARPA>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 38

> From: phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai)

> When mail passes through a non-sendmail site, the From: line
> is not updated and becomes incorrect. But Berkeley Mail uses
> it to form the return address if you do a "r" command.

> From: dave@uwvax.ARPA

> You will notice (if you have source) that 4.2bsd Mail will take
> the 'Reply-to:' field instead of 'From:' if the former exists.

We deal with it by using path aliasing and sending mail to "joeblow@foo.UUCP".
Most of the time, that works; when it doesn't, the user does have to
construct the path themselves (using ~h to monkey with the "To:" field),
but that's fairly rare.

"Reply-to:" was, I believe, intended for use with messages sent to
distribution lists, so the whole list wouldn't see the replies, so it isn't
a solution to the problem.  Besides, the non-"sendmail" sites aren't likely
to properly update "Reply-to:" if they don't update "From:".  The problem
is somewhat one of relative (UUCP "bang") vs. absolute addressing.  I
shouldn't have to know or care how a mail message got here; getting a reply
back is the responsibility of the mail system.  Hopefully, the UUCP project
will clear up these problems, at least for participating sites.

> A side point.  If the non-BSD site messes up the 'From:' line,
> shouldn't the site in question be notified of their actions?

Yes, if you consider RFC822 compliance to be everybody's responsibility and
you consider not properly updating the "From:" field to imply non-compliance
with 822.  However, not everybody out there can get "sendmail" (it's not
a BSD vs. non-BSD question; lots of non-BSD sites run "sendmail") and not all
of them are really better off going through the trouble to get and run
"sendmail" (it does impose a cost - see the paper on 4.2BSD performance from
Leffler, McKusick, et. al. from the SLC USENIX).

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy