nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/31/90)
As far as I can tell, the rule: R$*<$+>$* $2 basic RFC822 parsing found in ruleset 3 is cruft, put in by someone who doesn't understand sendmail. In perusing the source, it seems that comment<addr>comment is already taken care of. Is this true? -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
Makey@Logicon.COM (Jeff Makey) (06/01/90)
In sendmail 5.61, at least, the rule is necessary. If you don't
believe me, comment it out and try sending to any address of the form,
"foobar <foo@bar>".
:: Jeff Makey
Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department
Disclaimer: All opinions are strictly those of the author.
Internet: Makey@Logicon.COM UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!logicon.com!Makeynelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (06/07/90)
In <somearticle@image.soe.clarkson.edu> I said: As far as I can tell, the rule: R$*<$+>$* $2 basic RFC822 parsing found in ruleset 3 is cruft, put in by someone who doesn't understand sendmail. In perusing the source, it seems that comment<addr>comment is already taken care of. Is this true? No, it's not true. Sendmail seems to strip the comments, but it also happily sends the whole address, comments and all, to the rewrite rules. So, without the rule, addresses had an extra set of <>s, which really confused the user<@host> convention that the rewrite rules keep. The reason it worked when I did it by hand is that I neglected to add the <>'s around the mail from: and rcpt to: addresses. Oops. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems