Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Re^2: Smail 3.X Keywords: smail Message-ID: <7362@ficc.uu.net> Date: 19 Dec 89 18:29:46 GMT References: <18806@cfctech.UUCP> <104@mosh.UUCP> <7341@ficc.uu.net> <106@mosh.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 35 In article <106@mosh.UUCP> rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) writes: > peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Both machines correctly inserted the date, but smail 3.1 lost the From_ line. > >While this isn't RFC822, it's what Version 2 UUCP generates. It should be > >handled by smail. > Are you saying that Smail 3.1 doesn't generate a From_ before passing > the message to uux? In that case you're wrong. No, I didn't say that. Look at the messages again. Smail 2.5 read my name (peter) from the From_ line on ficc, and copied it to the From_ line that was on the message sent to texbell. Smail 3.1 ignored the From_ line and invented one (From Postmaster...) and put it on the From_ line that it sent to sugar. Any mail I send via texbell ends up being From_ texbell!Postmaster. Mail sent via uunet, sugar, or any of our local machines (running System V 3.0 on Arix 1100s) works just fine. ficc System: Xenix 286, (System III based). Mailer: Vanilla Xenix mail, using Version 2 UUCP style headers. texbell System: System V (I think) on an NCR Tower. Mailer: Smail 3.1 sugar System: System V/386 on a clone. Mailer: Smail 2.5 -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com