Xref: utzoo comp.mail.sendmail:400 comp.mail.uucp:2608 comp.unix.questions:11025
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!rick
From: rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.uucp,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: smail vs. sendmail
Summary: RFC822 is quite clear about what to do
Message-ID: <44481@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: 10 Jan 89 19:46:46 GMT
References: <398@atcmpe.UUCP> <2754@mhres.mh.nl>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 28

In article <2754@mhres.mh.nl>, jv@mhres.mh.nl (Johan Vromans) writes:
> 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.

RFC822 is unambiguous about this. Section 6.2.2 EXPLICITLY states

	When a message crosses a domain boundary, all
	addresses must be specified in the full format,
	ending with the top-level name-domain in the
	rightmost field.

You crossed a domain boundary when you forwarded the mail to
your backbone site. It was YOUR responsibility to fully qualify those
addresses, not someone elses. The backbone is attempting to
qualify a garbage address. You can't blame it for making garbage
out of garbage.

Why is it more logical to expect EVERYONE to know your local mail
forwarding rules so that they can reply to your mail and
correctly send mail to the CC lines? It seems that fully
qualified addresses are easiest for everyone.

---rick