Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!ruuinf!edwin
From: edwin@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl (Edwin Kremer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: New Elm behavior
Summary: A suggestion on how to use the domain
Message-ID: <1346@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl>
Date: 29 May 89 09:50:52 GMT
References: <133@dsinc.DSI.COM> <137@dsinc.DSI.COM>
Organization: Univ of Utrecht, Dept of CS
Lines: 28

First of all, I should say that I *really* like ELM and also appreciate
the activities of the ELM development group, trying to develop the best of
the best.

  In article <137@dsinc.DSI.COM>, syd@dsinc.DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:
  > 1.  Signatures were being confused as to local/remote.
  > 
  >     The code checks to see if the address has you domain name in it
  >     and uses local, else it uses remote.  The patch fixed this.
Ok, I *like* this feature, but I see an implementation problem:
looking at the code, I would say it checks "<hostname><domain>" and not if
your domain is just part of the address. So if you are on machine "xxx" at
domain "sub.top", only "...@xxx.sub.top" checks out to be local. But what
if I mail to a collegue who happens to own machine "yyy" and thus would be
addressed "...@yyy.sub.top" ?????
Isn't it more logical to just check if the address ENDS with your domain
(leading '.' stripped to be able to hide machine names and have a smart
sendmail running) and have all "...@whatever.sub.top" taken local ???

Any comments on this ???

					--[ Edwin ]--

-- 
Edwin Kremer, Department of Computer Science, University of Utrecht
Padualaan 14,  P.O. Box 80.089,  3508 TB  Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Phone: +31 - 30 - 534104        |  UUCP    : ...!hp4nl!ruuinf!edwin
    "I speak for myself ..."    |  INTERNET: edwin@cs.ruu.nl