Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!infotel!pollux!ndmce!tp From: tp@ndmce.uucp (Terry Poot) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: In defense of sendmail Message-ID: <1139@ndmce.uucp> Date: Mon, 19-Jan-87 16:09:31 EST Article-I.D.: ndmce.1139 Posted: Mon Jan 19 16:09:31 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Jan-87 22:56:49 EST References: <1137@ndmce.uucp> <16890@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: tp@ndmce.UUCP (Terry Poot) Organization: Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Dallas Lines: 74 In article <16890@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jordan@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Jordan Hayes) writes: > > [ Jordan's comment on my remark about sendmail messing up from lines] > >Notice the attack on "sendmail" rather than "novice sendmail >maintainer" ...? Just because sendmail is "hard" to understand and use >correctly doesn't mean that the program is responsible for some >haphazard site running a config file that is destroying headers beyond >usability. While it's certainly clear that sendmail has sufficient >power to destroy any header, make a note of the fact that there are >many sucessful configurations around doing really good things for >mail. A few of the better ones have been well documented and made >available. There's no reason if you have a reasonable network >situation that you can't find a cf file to suit your needs. I have seen 2 configuration packages posted to the net. I assume these are the ones you refer to. Why would a novice sendmail maintainer even dream of tackling a job like customizing something that involved, which he doesn't understand in the first place? Several of my neighboring sites run sendmail and muck up From: lines. Very little mail that I get has a useable From: line. Are most sendmail maintainers novices? Is there a decent configuration package (such as you mention) shipped with sendmail from Berkeley (which I assume is where 99% of them come from)? Why isn't it used. A quick scan of some mail in my mailbox shows from lines with the proper address prefixed by seismo!, sdcrdcf!, ihnp4! and uiucdcs!. I am not sure about the problem (whether it occured there or downstream), but does this mean that the configurations at these sites are poor? I hardly think the maintainers of these sites are novices. >This is really classic stuff. Sendmail has the ability to follow more >standards (and has been made to do so) than anything I've ever seen. Could you tell me where to get a sendmail.cf that properly handles From: lines. I'd like to look at it for my own edification. If it works with smail, I might even use it. I'd really like something to do header processing (to the degree it should be done). I also like other features of sendmail. I was really interested in bringing it up until I started hearing really bad things about it. It was not my attempt to spread any mis-information, and I'm sorry if I have done so. I just noticed that many of the smail gripes seemed to actually be sendmail problems. For instance, a major gripe was that the From: line could not be used for replies. This is because sendmail sites have been tacking sitename! to the front of the address in the From: line. This is incorrect by RFC822, and smail attempts to do it right, by bypassing sendmail whenever possible. Thus people have actually been complaining that smail does not exhibit a bug found in sendmail, or rather (thank you Jordan) in most sendmail configurations. It still seems to me that improper sendmail configurations (rather than sendmail itself, as I incorrectly stated) are at the root of these kinds of problems. If nobody prepended anything to the From: address, then the address would be perfectly acceptable to smail and useable for replies. This conflicts with existing practice by sites running sendmail, but it does follow the standards. Note that the current practice by sendmail sites does not apply to non-sendmail sites, so it is not possible to standardize on existing behaviour. Since we can't go that route, even if we wanted to, we should move forward as quickly as possible to making uucp mail conform to RFC822. I hope someone will post one of these high quality configuration packages that Jordan refers to, or publicize the whereabouts and usage of same if it is already easily available, so that 'novice sendmail maintainers' will be able to easily correct the header processing done by their system. I hope I have spread no more mis-information. I am sure someone will correct me if I said something wrong :-) -- Terry Poot, Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, (214)739-4741 8800 N. Central Expressway, Suite 300, Dallas, Tx 75231, USA UUCP: { seismo | cbosgd | ihnp4 | sun!convex | allegra!convex }!ndmce!tp ARPA: ndmce!tp@seismo.css.gov CSNET: ndmce!tp@smu