rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) (12/21/89)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >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. IC. I don't seem to have this problem at my site, though. Maybe you have an old Smail 3.1 version? --Anders
rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) (12/21/89)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >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. Hm.. I took a closer look at uucp/smail and found that you're correct. I'm not certain, for the moment, if the erroneous From_ line comes from smail or uucp. Check this out: $ cat test From foo@bar.se Wed Dec 20 19:13:40 1989 Received: by diana.komunity.se (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.18) id <m0geBkl-0000wFC@diana.komunity.se>; Wed, 20 Dec 89 19:13 CET Message-Id: <m0geBkl-0000wFC@diana.komunity.se> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 19:13 CET From: rolff (Anders Rolff) To: rolff Subject: foo Status: R bar $ rmail rolff <test In my mailbox: From bar.se!foo Wed Dec 20 19:54:34 1989 Return-Path: <bar.se!foo> Received: by diana.komunity.se (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.18) id <m0geCOL-0001rBC@diana.komunity.se>; Wed, 20 Dec 89 19:54 CET Received: by diana.komunity.se (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.14.4 #14.18) id <m0geBkl-0000wFC@diana.komunity.se>; Wed, 20 Dec 89 19:13 CET Message-Id: <m0geBkl-0000wFC@diana.komunity.se> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 19:13 CET From: rolff (Anders Rolff) To: rolff Subject: foo Status: RO bar As you see, rmail works perfectly alright. --Anders (rolff@komunity.se)