tpf@pyr.gatech.EDU (Tom Friedel) (05/08/89)
I'm not sure how my sendmail/smail/uux setup is incorrect, but if I had a ruleset that would convert A!B!C@D to A!B!D!C I think things would work better. I am running SysV 386/ix with sendmail. If this question provides insight into the real problem, let me know. Thnaks much for anyones time, JDyx Public Access Unix Board | Tom Friedel ...gatech!emory!jdyx!tpf | tpf@pyr.gatech.edu (404) 321-5020 | (404) 320-7624
steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) (05/09/89)
In article <8130@pyr.gatech.EDU> tpf@pyr.gatech.EDU (Tom Friedel) writes: >I'm not sure how my sendmail/smail/uux setup is incorrect, but >if I had a ruleset that would convert > > A!B!C@D to A!B!D!C > >I think things would work better. Treading into dangerous waters here, but I'll give this a shot. I think the translation you suggest here is wrong, according to RFC 822. I think the way this should be translated is: A!B!C@D yields D!A!B!C You should (God, I hope this is right) always take the rightmost domain first, and use the preceeding UUCP bang-path address as fodder for D's mailer (it is presumed that D has a route to A, or can figure one out). If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me, but I think in this case I have that right. If that's not what you're asking, then I must have misunderstood the question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve DeJarnett | Smart Mailers -> steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | | Computer Systems Lab | Dumb Mailers -> ..!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!steve | | Cal Poly State Univ. |------------------------------------------------| | San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | BITNET = Because Idiots Type NETwork | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (05/09/89)
>if I had a ruleset that would convert A!B!C@D to A!B!D!C >I think things would work better. Without judging whether this is the right thing to do, here is a sequence of rules to make that transformation. I assume there may be more than two !s in the input, and also that there are no bracketing angle brackets present when these rules are invoked. Oh, and I also assume that any of A, B, ... may consist of multiple "words". R$+!$+@$+ $:$1!<$2@$3> focus on at-sign R$+<$+!$+@$+> $1$2!<$3@$4> get all bangs outside R$+<$+@$+> $1$3!$2 convert at-sign to bang Exercises for those still learning the cf language: 1. Why is the second rule needed? 2. Why is the "$:" needed in the first rule? Why not in the third? In case, as Steve DeJarnett suggested, you really want to turn A!B!C@D into D!A!B!C (although RFC822 has little or nothing to do with this), a single rule suffices. R$+!$+@$+ $3!$1!$2 final at-sign to initial bang Any of these rules could have undesired effects when the input is not of the assumed form ... for instance, if there are multiple @s. ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu