Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:1568 comp.mail.headers:370 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!david From: david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Real data to support my claim that '-d sun' is the way to go. Message-ID: <10139@g.ms.uky.edu> Date: 7 Aug 88 16:35:57 GMT References: <3703@palo-alto.DEC.COM> Reply-To: david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 68 In article <3703@palo-alto.DEC.COM> vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) writes: >I ran a test tonight to see how Sun.COM's MTA was behaving. The results >are unsurprising. Yeah, but none of the results came up with vixie!paul@sun.com like you claimed it would ... hmmm I'm not real sure how the mail got from sun to decwrl. In all the cases the Received: line has full.domain.names for both sun and decwrl, something which I assume would happen only when it's being delivered over the internet. But the From: and To: lines are in bang format, something I would expect for mail delivered over a uucp link. Perhaps sun is putting a sun.com in the From_ lines of uucp mail? Oh, MH may put uucp routes into Return-Path:. What it's *really* for is in the SMTP protocol, for recording the path the message took through the network. When a message arrives at some place with SMTP you add your own hostname to the Return-Path: line. So, in the general case, Return-Path: means the return-path in the 'envelope'. For UUCP mail the 'envelope' is the From_ line(s) and the command line given to rmail. (forward-path). >Return-Path: sun!pacbell!vixie!paul >Subject: test, From: line in @ notation (From: paul@vixie.uu.net) >From: Paul A Vixie > >--- >This first one is replyable, though for a strange reason. decwrl would send >it to "sun!" who would see "vixie.uu.net!" and say "ah, uunet.uu.net is the >MX for *.uu.net, so I'll send it to uunet.uu.net who will deliver it >further." The message didn't come through uunet to get to decwrl; why >should it have to go back that way? Why are you surprised at this? Maybe you haven't read rfc976? Though I'd be surprised if you hadn't. Anyway, this is a classic case of garbage-in garbage-out. You told it to do something (i.e. that you're part of the uu.net domain) so it's merely doing the right thing for what it knows. If you were to advertise in the uucp maps that you are the gateway for vixie.uu.net, AND your mailer is ready to accept vixie.uu.net as an alias for itself, THEN sun would know some path which merely went through the bay area and would reach you. >Return-Path: sun!pacbell!vixie!paul >Subject: test, From: line in @ notation (From: paul@vixie.UUCP) >From: Paul A Vixie > >--- >This message is unreplyable. This is why I have "-d sun" in my makepaths >script. I can't fault Sun.COM for rewriting u@h.UUCP to h!u since they >mean the same thing; adding "sun!" to the front of the result is just >plain wrong and there is no modern defense for the practice. If they are running a passive re-router then it would be replyable. I do not know what they are running, but passive re-routing (to use your terms) is simple to put up -- even under sendmail :-) -- and does wonders for the usability of the system. I agree that simply prepending sun! to a From: line is *wrong*. emory used to (still does?) get this very wrong ... They'd prepend emory! to the beginning of From: & To: lines which went out via uucp. So we'd end up with messages From: emory!speck@arizona.edu (I forget the exact address, but it was Don Speck I think ...). -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <---- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- Looking forward to a particularly blatant, talkative and period bikini ...