mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (12/29/90)
Just to see if more bickering occurs :-)
How's about the writing of headers like
Received: from foo.UUCP by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP
...
when foo was really foo.bar.com. And said so. And the transport was UUCP.
Why doesn't it say
Received: from foo.bar.com by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP
...
Does anybody get this right? What is right?
--
Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (12/30/90)
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM writes:
How's about the writing of headers like
Received: from foo.UUCP by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP
when foo was really foo.bar.com. And said so. And the transport was UUCP.
Why doesn't it say
Received: from foo.bar.com by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP
Does anybody get this right? What is right?
At the level of UUCP transport, a machine identifies itself with a
one-word hostname. That is, UUCP host "foo" did not in fact identify
itself _during_rmail_execution_ as "foo.bar.com," but rather as just
plain old "foo." (E.g., if you use smail 2.5 as your UUCP router
under sendmail, hence rmail is actually smail in disguise, smail will
generate a sendmail invocation something like
/usr/lib/sendmail -em -ffoo!user 'someone@destina.tion'
for you.) At that level, a Received: showing "foo.UUCP" is right.
But the references to foo.bar.com should be preserved within From:,
To:, and so on.tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (12/31/90)
In article <KARL.90Dec30015529@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM writes: > How's about the writing of headers like > Received: from foo.UUCP by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP > when foo was really foo.bar.com. And said so. And the transport was UUCP. > >At the level of UUCP transport, a machine identifies itself with a >one-word hostname. That is, UUCP host "foo" did not in fact identify >itself _during_rmail_execution_ as "foo.bar.com," but rather as just >plain old "foo." ... > At that level, a Received: showing "foo.UUCP" is right. But why tack on the content free ".UUCP" pseudo-domain? Why shouldn't it simply say Received: from foo by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP I confess to being somewhat irked at the MEANINGLESS proliferation of the UUCP pseudo-domain all over the place. It was never more than a bit of routing sleight-of-hand for Internet purposes, and shouldn't be used where it doesn't apply. (And DEFINITELY not where a site isn't actually registered in the Zone.) -- What luck for rulers that men []+ Tom Neff do not think. -- A. Hitler +[] tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM