Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2675 comp.mail.misc:1566 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: smail 3.x Message-ID: <1989Jan23.123308.11213@ateng.ateng.com> Date: 23 Jan 89 17:33:08 GMT References: <392@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> <6616@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <430@zinn.MV.COM> <7095@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <437@zinn.MV.COM> <5068@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1989Jan20.173422.1110@ateng.ateng.com> <5074@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 29 According to zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff): >According to chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): >>This "feature" would really be a misfeature of the worst kind. If I am >>mailing from a smart site, to a smart site, via a dumb site, I do NOT want >>to rewrite all addresses into UUCP form! The character of the next site in >>the bang path should *NOT* affect the message header. > >Agreed, although that's not what I said. The rmail command line >addresses DO need to be rewritten or the dumb site is going to bounce >it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Smail 3's behavior in this case is the more conservative one: if the originator of the message specifies a bang path, it is used without modification. This behavior never breaks correct paths. (If the maps are causing pathalias to generate incorrect paths, then fix the map entries for the dumb sites.) >I could (and probably would) use it if it was just a little more flexible. Smail 3 isn't "flexible" enough? What do you want, Pla-Do? If I had a problem, and I had a program in source form that provides 95% of a solution to that problem, I would use the program after modifying it to taste. That's what source code is for, after all. -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."