wilhite@seas.gwu.edu (Robert Wilhite) (04/20/91)
At our office, we have one person (a point-man, of sorts) who sifts through the root mailbox and "bounces" messages to the appropriate recipients. The hitch is that the "bounce" function leaves no clues in the header telling who the message was originally from, so unless there's a signature on the note, it's often hard to know who to reply to. The "forward" function, of course, includes whatever portion of the original you choose to retain, so that's what our point-man uses. Was it intentional that the "bounce" command eliminate all header info referring to the original author (i.e., to make it appear that the "bouncer" is the original author)? If not, would it be difficult to have the "bounce" code create a "Reply-To:" or "X-Author:" in the header? (All the same, I find elm [2.3 PL11] to be very handy. Kudos to DT for getting it started, and to Syd et al for keeping it going.) -- Robert (wilhite@seas.gwu.edu)
syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (04/21/91)
wilhite@seas.gwu.edu (Robert Wilhite) writes: >Was it intentional that the "bounce" command eliminate all header info >referring to the original author (i.e., to make it appear that the >"bouncer" is the original author)? If not, would it be difficult to >have the "bounce" code create a "Reply-To:" or "X-Author:" in the header? Something sounds backwards here. Bounce is supposed to make it appear as if it came from the original author, not from the bouncer. (And it does for me...) Thats the idea of it. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) (04/22/91)
wilhite@seas.gwu.edu () wrote: >At our office, we have one person (a point-man, of sorts) who sifts >through the root mailbox and "bounces" messages to the appropriate >recipients. The hitch is that the "bounce" function leaves no clues >in the header telling who the message was originally from, so unless >there's a signature on the note, it's often hard to know who to reply >to. Don't you have this backwards? The bounce command leaves little trace of who the *bouncer* is, and makes it appear that the letter was sent by the original author. Btw, the top From line(s) (not the header From: ) should indicate who the bouncer is, although this info is not normally displayed by elm when paging through messages. >Was it intentional that the "bounce" command eliminate all header info >referring to the original author (i.e., to make it appear that the >"bouncer" is the original author)? If not, would it be difficult to >have the "bounce" code create a "Reply-To:" or "X-Author:" in the header? The purpose of the bounce command is to send on a message to an appropriate recipient as if the original author addressed it directly to that person. So when the final recipient gets it and, say, does a reply, the reply is to the original author, not the intervening bouncer. -- Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions email: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US phone: (415) 827-4301
silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr22.142212.23250@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes: >wilhite@seas.gwu.edu () wrote: >>At our office, we have one person (a point-man, of sorts) who sifts >>through the root mailbox and "bounces" messages to the appropriate >>recipients. The hitch is that the "bounce" function leaves no clues >>in the header telling who the message was originally from, so unless >>there's a signature on the note, it's often hard to know who to reply >>to. > >Don't you have this backwards? The bounce command leaves little trace >of who the *bouncer* is, and makes it appear that the letter was sent >by the original author. Unfortunately Wilhite has a real problem. I've checked this on three machines, and on one of them bounced mail appears to come from the bouncer, not from the bouncee. The machines have the same configuration and run 2.3 PL 11. I sent on what info I could, but it seems like a wierd problem! -- William Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division, Bedford Inst. of Oceanography P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2. Tel. (902)426-1577 UUCP=..!{uunet|watmath}!dalcs!biome!silvert BITNET=silvert%biome%dalcs@dalac InterNet=silvert%biome@cs.dal.ca
wilhite@seas.gwu.edu (Robert Wilhite) (04/24/91)
>The hitch is that the "bounce" function leaves no clues in the header >telling who the message was originally from, so . . . . Several folks suggested sendmail might be rewriting all the header info. I killed sendmail, bounced a test message, and looked at the queue files; sure enough, prior to being processed by our central mail-mangler, the original sender was listed correctly. Time to start badgering our local sendmail.cf hacker (me). -- Robert (wilhite@seas.gwu.edu)