alan@ernest.ti.com (Alan Edmonds) (10/10/90)
One of the sites I get mail from (call them site) insists on rewriting the From: header from user@host.domain into site!user@host.domain. This makes a reply address get really mangled. I looked over site's sendmail.cf file and found the following: ############################################################ ### UUCP Mailer specification ############################################################ Muux, P=/usr/bin/uux, F=sDFMuU, S=13, R=23, M=100000, A=uux - -r $h!rmail ($u) S13 R$+ $:$>5 $1 convert to old style #--R$*<@$*>$* $@ $1<@$2>$3 don't mung! (?) R$=R!$+ $2 avoid redundancy R$+ $:$R!$1 stick on our UUCP name S23 R$+ $:$>5 $1 convert to old style In ruleset S13, last rule inserts their site name in front of the address. Is this a "good" idea? How do other sites handle this kind of situation? Why not delete the last rule (in S13) and be done with it?
gary@dgcad.sv.dg.com (Gary Bridgewater) (10/12/90)
In article <1450@ernest.ti.com> alan@ernest.ti.com (Alan Edmonds) writes: >... >S13 >R$+ $:$>5 $1 convert to old style >#--R$*<@$*>$* $@ $1<@$2>$3 don't mung! (?) A mispelled, overly clever comment! ^^^^^^^^^^ "munge" is, however, sufficiently obscure that it should be changed - folks who distribute these things please note. What we have here is a commented out rewrite rule that is there to _stop_ you from suffixing domainized addresses - thus munging them. Re-enable this line. >R$=R!$+ $2 avoid redundancy >R$+ $:$R!$1 stick on our UUCP name > >In ruleset S13, last rule inserts their site name in front of the address. >Is this a "good" idea? How do other sites handle this kind of situation? >Why not delete the last rule (in S13) and be done with it? This is a religious issue, in general (here comes the deluge) but under no circumstance should you _ever_ add a !prefix to an "@" address. Of course, many mixed sites do this with a vengeance - or its equally ugly counterpart - adding an "@" address to the end of a !path. Either of these mis-re-writes tend to make bounced mail die quite nicely as it tries to find its way back to the sender. -- Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation, Sunnyvale California gary@sv.dg.com or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad!gary C++ - it's the right thing to do.
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (10/13/90)
In article <1450@ernest.ti.com> alan@ernest.ti.com (Alan Edmonds) writes: >One of the sites I get mail from (call them site) insists on rewriting the From: >header from user@host.domain into site!user@host.domain. This makes >a reply address get really mangled. >Is this a "good" idea? How do other sites handle this kind of situation? >Why not delete the last rule (in S13) and be done with it? I consider it an incredibly bad idea to turn the From: line into a mixture of ! and @ forms since there is no way for a uucp recpient to figure out what it means. Rewriting user@domain into domain!user would be tolerable except that it encourages the next site to add its uucp name as above, but not all sites will participate in this, so what might have started out as a replyable FQDN turns into a bangpath leading to a non-connected bare hostname from hell. One of the few things I don't like about smail 3 is that it is hard-coded to add the local host name to !-path From: lines as they pass through. Uucp sites that don't understand domain names on From: lines should reply back the path in the envelope From_ line anyway. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) (10/13/90)
In article <1450@ernest.ti.com> alan@ernest.ti.com (Alan Edmonds) writes: >One of the sites I get mail from (call them site) insists on rewriting the From: >header from user@host.domain into site!user@host.domain. This makes >a reply address get really mangled. I looked over site's sendmail.cf >file and found the following: > [ ... ] >Muux, P=/usr/bin/uux, F=sDFMuU, S=13, R=23, M=100000, > A=uux - -r $h!rmail ($u) > >S13 >R$+ $:$>5 $1 convert to old style >#--R$*<@$*>$* $@ $1<@$2>$3 don't mung! (?) >R$=R!$+ $2 avoid redundancy >R$+ $:$R!$1 stick on our UUCP name > [ ... ] >In ruleset S13, last rule inserts their site name in front of the address. >Is this a "good" idea? How do other sites handle this kind of situation? >Why not delete the last rule (in S13) and be done with it? The problem here is commenting out the second line in S13. That would have immediately terminated the ruleset for any address with an '@', avoiding prepending site!. -- Bruce Lilly blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM