Xref: utzoo junk:1060 comp.mail.uucp:1224 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!jeff From: jeff@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Stearns) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Multiple recipients in smail/sendmail Message-ID: <3407@fluke.COM> Date: 13 Apr 88 20:20:41 GMT References: <778@srs.UUCP> Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Lines: 34 Keywords: mail multiple rabbits In article <778@srs.UUCP> matt@srs.uucp (Matt Goheen) writes: >This rarely happens here, but one of our users recently sent out >a mail message with LOTS of recipients. Unfortunately, this >generated multiple copies of the data file. .... Matt, recall that sendmail passes each recipient address through ruleset 0 to find a {mailer, host, user} tuple. Tuples are sorted by mailer and host. You say that you're using smail, so it's likely that all your tuples resolve to mailer==smail. But be sure that all hosts resolve to the SAME CONSTANT STRING. You might expect that an address of the form "matt@srs.uucp" should resolve to {mailer=smail, host=srs.uucp, user=matt}, but this is wrong. Instead, ruleset 0 should resolve this address to {mailer=smail, host=SomeIgnoredConstantString, user=matt@srs.uucp} Now sendmail's sort phase will respect the "sumtiple recipient" flag you mention. Aside: Sendmail has changed for the worse in recent revisions; more than ever it insists upon passing TRANSPORT addresses through rulesets for HEADER addresses. This point is a bit subtle and counterintuitive. A close inspection of 4.3BSD sendmail' internal ruleset invocation will show that for most configuration files the user part should contain the complete domain address (not just the local-part). Thus the solution I propose to Matt isn't merely an optimization. -- Jeff Stearns Domain: jeff@tc.fluke.COM Voice: +1 206 356 5064 If you must: {uw-beaver,microsoft,sun}!fluke!jeff USPS: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / Everett WA 98206