silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) (05/29/89)
A common problem for our machine is that ELM extracts incorrect
return addresses. I can live with this, but it is exasperating when ELM
dumps the letter contents onto dead.letter without any warning. If I
edit the headers I get a warning that the address is bad, so I can fix it.
Would it be hard to modify ELM so that when the address is invalid it
invokes the headers menu? This would be a lot easier to cope with than
having to retransmit the entire reply after editing down a huge
dead.letter file.
--
Bill Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division.
Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4A2
UUCP: ...!{uunet,watmath}!dalcs!biomel!bill
Internet: biomel@cs.dal.CA BITNET: bs%dalcs@dalac.BITNETrob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (05/29/89)
In article <3283@cs.dal.ca> silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) writes:
+A common problem for our machine is that ELM extracts incorrect
+return addresses. I can live with this, but it is exasperating when ELM
+dumps the letter contents onto dead.letter without any warning. If I
+edit the headers I get a warning that the address is bad, so I can fix it.
A misunderstanding here. It is your MTA, not ELM, which has rejected the
address and dumpted the message into dead.letter. ELM is limited by its
configuration as to its ability to second guess what addresses your MTA
will reject. There are a number of configuration options that govern
ELM's treatment of both return addresses and addresses specified by the user.
I'm not completely familiar with all of them as we don't use many of them
here. But what you'll need to do is investigate why the MTA has rejected
the address and which configuration option might take care of that particular
sort of problem.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiaroot@texbell.swbt.com (greg) (05/30/89)
In article <3283@cs.dal.ca> silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) writes: >A common problem for our machine is that ELM extracts incorrect >return addresses. In config.h, try undefining NOCHECK_VALIDNAME and DONT_TOUCH_ADDRESSES, and defining OPTIMIZE_RETURN. Then, play with USE_EMBEDDED_ADDRESSES to see which works the best for you. Also, you might check your mail transport program to see if it likes the addresses. With sendmail, you can type "/usr/lib/sendmail -bv -v ADDRESS", and with smail, "/bin/smail -A ADDRESS". -- Greg Internet: hack@texbell.swbt.com Southwestern Bell Hackney UUCP: {rutgers,bellcore}!texbell!hack Telephone Company
silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) (05/30/89)
In article <5426@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <3283@cs.dal.ca> silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) writes: >+A common problem for our machine is that ELM extracts incorrect >+return addresses. >A misunderstanding here. It is your MTA, not ELM, which has rejected the >address and dumpted the message into dead.letter. ELM is limited by its >configuration as to its ability to second guess what addresses your MTA >will reject. Although this may be technically true, ELM can tell that the addresses will be rejected. If I remember to edit the headers before sending, I always get an ELM message that the address cannot be expanded, so ELM is looking at the address before displaying it at the To: line. All I am asking is that ELM carry out the same check even if I do not invoke the headers menu -- it would take a fraction of a second, but rejected addresses take longer than that to sort out. I realize that ELM cannot guarantee that the addresses are correct, but if it has the ability to recognize a bad address I would like it to do so automatically, rather than being asked to by invoking the headers menu. By the way, is there any possibility that a modest editing capability could be built into the headers menu, perhaps in ELM 2.3? I could correct many of the incorrect reply addresses by just inserting six bytes at the beginning of the address, but as it is I now have to completely rekey the full address. -- Bill Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division. Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4A2 UUCP: ...!{uunet,watmath}!dalcs!biomel!bill Internet: biomel@cs.dal.CA BITNET: bs%dalcs@dalac.BITNET
jeremy@lana.prime.com (Jeremy Nussbaum) (05/31/89)
I have been having many problems with the addresses generated by the reply option in elm, and many people at my site are unhappy about it. What ways if any are there to help elm generate a good return address on the reply option? Are there configuration parameters on where to look, or are there any user settable options? We have some of the standard "sendmail on machines x,y and z rewrites some headers" problem. Along those lines, the save option doesn't realize whom the mail is from on some pieces of mail. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Jeremy Nussbaum (jeremy@jeremy.prime.com, ...!harvard!prmcad!jeremy) Prime Computer/2 Crosby Drive MS 16-2 /Bedford, Ma. 01730 (617)275-1800 x6745 Standard Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine and not my employer's.
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/14/89)
According to jeremy@lana.prime.com (Jeremy Nussbaum): >I have been having many problems with the addresses generated by the >reply option in elm, and many people at my site are unhappy about it. You can reconfigure Elm to ignore the Reply-To: and From: in favor of the From_ line (gack!). I've never tried it, but it's worth a try. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
jeremy@lana.prime.com (Jeremy Nussbaum) (06/17/89)
In article <1989Jun14.124414.20925@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to jeremy@lana.prime.com (Jeremy Nussbaum): >>I have been having many problems with the addresses generated by the >>reply option in elm, and many people at my site are unhappy about it. > >You can reconfigure Elm to ignore the Reply-To: and From: in favor of the >From_ line (gack!). I've never tried it, but it's worth a try. >-- I want to do the opposite, and configure elm to use the from: line, because it is having difficulty with the many @'s and : that have crept into the From_ line. I am adding a configuration variable to my local installation to disable from line return address calculation. We send all of our mail to a central smart mailing machine via sendmail, so we don't want to do any special address calculation or optimization. In looking at RFC822, c.5.4, only one @ is permitted. We occasionally get mail with more than one @ in the from field, and I presume elm doesn't like the rfc733 syntax. Does anyone else run into this problem? Does anyone else have a better fix or workaround? Thanks, Jeremy Nussbaum (jeremy@jeremy.prime.com, ...!harvard!prmcad!jeremy) Prime Computer/2 Crosby Drive MS 16-2 /Bedford, Ma. 01730 (617)275-1800 x6745 Standard Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine and not my employer's.