kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) (09/28/87)
In <1692@umix.cc.umich.edu>, honey@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes: > i've seen sendmail hacks (from waterloo?) that let rewrite rules munge > addresses with $>program. I was told of this several months ago and thought it was a great idea. I was about to implement it here until I realized the amount of overhead it would entail per message. Sendmail calls those rewrite rules a LOT. Still, the current rewrite language IS rather inscrutable. Any suggestions for a replacement? I think the current parse code could be excised without too much difficulty. kyle jones <kyle@odu.edu> old dominion university, norfolk, va usa
joe@haddock.ISC.COM (Joe Chapman) (09/29/87)
Peter Honeyman: >>i've seen sendmail hacks (from waterloo?) that let rewrite rules munge >>addresses with $>program. Kyle Jones: >I was told of this several months ago and thought it was a great idea. >I was about to implement it here until I realized the amount of >overhead it would entail per message. Sendmail calls those rewrite >rules a LOT. Me: I assume that you wouldn't be using such a trick in ruleset 3, only after you'd munched and crunched the address down to size and were left with, say, foo!bar and no direct link to the machine foo. Under the circumstances you either route or reject the mail, and if you use a program to find routes it doesn't seem to me make much difference whether sendmail exec's it or someone else. I tried the $>program hack and didn't like it for some reason---I think it's because there's little space left for magic cookies like that in sendmail (or I was tired when I prototyped it and the code was lousy). I now use the $[ and $] canonicalization operators and allow alternate ``name servers'' (either a program, or a dbm file, or an actual network service) to be specified per ruleset. If you have to talk to really bizarre mail systems this is a big win---you can declare `tr Rr Ww' to be a nameserver for .BARBARA-WALTERS.COM, for example. Joe Chapman harvard!ima!joe
chips@usfvax2.UUCP (09/29/87)
In article <2581@xanth.UUCP>, kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) writes: > > Still, the current rewrite language IS rather inscrutable. Any > suggestions for a replacement? I think the current parse code could > be excised without too much difficulty. > > kyle jones <kyle@odu.edu> old dominion university, norfolk, va usa How about feeding the mail header through an awk program? Awk programs are quite readable. (Especially compared to the existing sendmail language.) In fact, I think I'll try it here... P.S. I'm not a sendmail guru, but I know enough about mail to install smail on an oddball system. (Xenix System V -- SVID with Berkeley-derived mail!) -- Chip Salzenberg "chip%ateng.uucp@UU.NET" or "uunet!ateng!chip" A.T. Engineering, Tampa CIS: 73717,366 Last Chance: "chips@usfvax2.UUCP" "Use the Source, Luke!" My opinions do not necessarily agree with anything.