Xref: utzoo comp.mail.sendmail:377 comp.mail.uucp:2576 comp.unix.questions:10955
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!mhres!jv
From: jv@mhres.mh.nl (Johan Vromans)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.uucp,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: smail vs. sendmail
Message-ID: <2754@mhres.mh.nl>
Date: 6 Jan 89 11:32:58 GMT
References: <398@atcmpe.UUCP>
Organization: Multihouse NV, the Netherlands
Lines: 34

From article <398@atcmpe.UUCP>, by gertjan@atcmpe.UUCP (Gertjan Vinkesteyn):
> In this version I am missing support for Cc: fields and Reply-To: and
> In-Reply-To: fields. Especially the absence of a Cc: field scanner can cause
> mail to bounce between major backbones like in the following example:
> 
> 	From: gertjan@atcmpe
> 	Cc: gertjan
> 	To: user@hp4nl
> results in 
> 	From: gertjan@atcmpe
> 	Cc: gertjan@hp4nl.nluug.nl
> 	To: user@hp4nl
> at the target site.

This is not caused by smail2.5, but by the backbone which doesn't
handle cc's properly. Unfortunately, RFC822 does not define what
to do in the above case. The backbone treats an address without
domain as "local" (as all sendmail based MTAs do). Another
opinion - and more logical - is to interpret CC-addresses relative
to the sender of the message. So the mailers can leave this field
alone, and the user agent can handle replys accordingly.

> So if smail3.x should be accepted in netland, let it be a good MTA mailer,
> comparable to sendmail and mmdf. Proper handling of RFC822 is first demand.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But not including sendmail bugs and cryptic configuration files.
Smail3.x is plug-compatible with sendmail. And it's worth waiting
for.


-- 
Johan Vromans			 jv@mh.nl via european backbone (mcvax)
Multihouse [A-Za-z ]* [NB]V			uucp: ..!mcvax!mh.nl!jv
Gouda - The Netherlands				  phone: +31 1820 62944