Xref: utzoo comp.mail.elm:1217 comp.mail.uucp:2899 comp.mail.misc:1716 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm,comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: The topmost From line in a message Message-ID: <1989Mar18.204743.13605@ateng.ateng.com> Date: 19 Mar 89 01:47:43 GMT References: <4820@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <9088@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> Followup-To: comp.mail.elm,comp.mail.uucp Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 30 [This is not "misc", but "uucp"; thus followups have been moved.] According to zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff): >According to rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo): >>ELM only recognizes lines of the format >> From [logname] [date] >>The question is: Is smail broken and disobeying the standard, or >>should ELM tolerate topmost from lines of such format? > >I think elm should tolerate it since it's an old standard. Jon here refers to "From [logname] [date] remote from [host]". A line of this form is the standard envelope for messages that are *in transit*. It is *not* the standard envelope for messages in mailboxes! Any mailer that deposits "remote from" envelopes in mailboxes is broken. >Of course I really think that all smail 2.5 sites should be running >my "lmail", which fixes this problem and adds forwarding to >programs and files. Let me know if you want a copy. Actually, I think that my deliver program is a rather more flexible and secure solution to the mail delivery problem; I wrote it after trying lmail. (And, yes, deliver folds the "remote from" field into the "From whoever" phrase.) But then, any author thinks his solution is best, right? :-) -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."