mcr@julie.UUCP (Michael Richardson) (06/01/90)
In message <13952@ucsd.Edu>, brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >An internetwork mail router must, by definition, transform addresses from >one of its networks to addresses that are acceptable to ALL hosts on >its destination network. Not really. Only the final destination machine is going to pay attention to the From: field, so it need only be palitable to the final destination. Tell me, do "true" gateways pay attention to the To: field? Does _anyone_ after the first mail processor pay attention to the To: field? [None of my machines do. This is fortunate since I have a whole slew of personal aliases that Mush happily expands to multiple destinations.] >The uucp network does not define addresses. Instead, it defines paths >of the form [site!]site!user. Only the next site in a path need be I'd be really curious as to the proportion of sites that do _not_ have a sendmail/MMDF/smail3 that can deal with real addresses. "UUCP" is a transport medium. Nothing more, nothing less. The days of having /bin/rmail call uux directly are disappearing. My 1 meg, non-MMU, 68000 based Amiga can route mail, deal with multiple domains, bang and sources, and different transport mediums. I rewrite site!siteA!sitrB!person into @site.UUX:@siteA.UUX:person@siteB.UUX and treat it as a source route. But I do this only with the envelope address. If I happen to be site and siteA, then I strip them, and deliver to siteB. >The UUCP Mapping project has attempted (and succeeded, in large part) to >define uucp addresses of the form @host.uucp. This functions in the >uucp network by replacing the address with a path (usually a path If the UUCP Mapping project has succeeded, then how come we can't be a "real" network? What about wimsey.bc.ca? Are they a real network? Last I heard, they were a bunch of micro-based people using reverse engineered UUPCs and GNUSlaves. [We are attempting to repeat that here in Ottawa.] I'll betcha that they can all do at least some smart-host'ing. >Note that the @ address may remain in the mail headers, but that isn't >significant to the uucp mail network; the headers are NOT used for mail >delivery, although many uucp mail systems will correctly prefix the Unix >header From_ (that's "From ", not the RFC822 "From: ") as the mail is >relayed through them. That's right. The From_ is the envelope from. Errors go the the envelope, replys to the From:. >Some uucp hosts, particularly those running sendmail, WILL update the >RFC822 "From: " line. Others don't, which means that the From: line >is of questionable integrity if the mail has ever passed through a uucp >link. Hardly. The path only sites will completely ignore the From: The sendmail sites [with intelligent decision makers] will also leave the From: alone. (Except for qualifying it if there is no sending domain, thus it must be us.) Worse, sites that CHANGE the From: line incorrectly (like UUNET) cause later sites (like mailrus) to add themselves to the From: and To:. And you talk to me about munging headers? No wonder people run rabid-rerouting. >line with the From_ line (since the From: is unreliable), unless the From: >address is a valid domain-style address. Few sites do this yet. Most of the mail that I send back on the From_ path of any length has never arrived due to rabid re-routers screwing up (or just filling up their buffer) >address. Anything else would require the final destination of the mail >to be able to interpolate or translate addresses, and you simply can't >depend on that capability. No, but anyone running a /bin/mail only site knows the path to nearest friendly site that has the full map database. >Thus if the From: line is of the form > user@host.domain >(where 'domain' is NOT "uucp"), then transform the address to > gateway!host.domain!user >And that's what uunet (and ucsd, and decwrl, and lots of other gateways) >are doing. It's clearly the right thing to do by default. From: lines tend to be: "user@host.domain (User's lovely Name)" -or- "Users' lovely Name <user@host.domain>" When you rewrite, I no longer know who sent it. If they don't have a signature, then I don't even know how to reply or what the guy's name is. Anyone dumb enough to drop the From_ (or have trusted users set up wrong so that you get "From uucp .../>From uucp.../>>From uucp") is dumb enough not to know how to munge the From: header. All my reply problems arise from the mail having gone through uunet. >declaration that the destination can handle it. But they shouldn't >DEFAULT that way. Yes they should. Or at the very least, more emphasis should be put on making sure that that site is truly that stupid. The few that are tend to be terminal sites anyway. BTW: uunet costomers might be interested to know that I mark uunet as dead in my maps. Mail still gets there, but usually via a once-a-month call to through Denmark or something else equally unlikely. I shall remember to mark ucsd and decwrl dead too. :!mcr!: | Tellement de lettres, si peu de temps. Michael Richardson | If Meech passes, no one will understand that. Play: mcr@julie.UUCP Work: michael@fts1.UUCP Fido: 1:163/109.10 1:163/138 Amiga----^ - Pay attention only to MY opinions. - ^--Amiga--^ -- :!mcr!: Michael Richardson Amiga v--------+ HOME: mcr@julie.UUCP | SCHOOL: mcr@doe.carleton.ca Fido: 1:163/109.10<--+ WORK: michael@fts1.UUCP
Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM (06/05/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.misc: 31-May-90 UUnet and munging > headers. Michael Richardson@julie (5499) > >An internetwork mail router must, by definition, transform addresses from > >one of its networks to addresses that are acceptable to ALL hosts on > >its destination network. > Not really. Only the final destination machine is going to pay > attention to the From: field, so it need only be palitable to the > final destination. Tell me, do "true" gateways pay attention to > the To: field? Does _anyone_ after the first mail processor pay attention > to the To: field? [None of my machines do. This is fortunate since > I have a whole slew of personal aliases that Mush happily expands to > multiple destinations.] Yes, *true* (i.e. not broken) gateways transform all addresses into those that are acceptable on the destination network (communication regime, communication medium, communication conventions, call it what you like). Not only To: fields, but CC: fields, ReSent-To:, ReSent-From:, ReSent-CC:, and (ugh) Return-receipt-to:. This is how you allow those who receive a message (call it A) to send their replies to all the folks who received message A. Do you expect them to have exactly the same set of Mush aliases that you do? The RFCs are pretty clear on this point. Do I need to find chapter-and-verse? Craig Everhart
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (06/06/90)
In article <IaOviRb0BwwOQbc2ly@transarc.com> Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM writes:
The RFCs are pretty clear on this point. Do I need to find chapter-and-verse?
When in doubt quote an RFC, it always impresses.
--Ed
Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu>
"my mail just works"