yedidya@bimacs.BITNET (Yedidya Israel) (02/02/89)
This is a questions about standard addresses. I am getting a letter say from George Bush bush@tree When I am replying with my mailer it sends mail to George Bush and bush@tree Is it my mailer's fault or should the person's address be: George Bush <bush@tree> (which my mailer parse well) ? -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Israel Yedidya, Math & CS Department, Bar-Ilan U, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | BITNET: yedidya@bimacs +----------------+ | | INTERNET: yedudya@bimacs.biu.ac.il \ | | | ARPA: yedidya%bimacs.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu / | | | UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!bimacs!yedidya +----------------+ | | CSNET: yedidya%bimacs.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@csnet-relay | | \----------------------------------------------------------------- | -/ ----- Reality is still a reality even if we do not understand it. -----
jos@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Jos Vos) (02/03/89)
In article <778@bimacs.BITNET> yedidya@bimacs.bitnet (Yedidya Israel) writes: >I am getting a letter say from > George Bush bush@tree >When I am replying with my mailer it sends mail to > George > Bush >and bush@tree >Is it my mailer's fault or should the person's address be: > George Bush <bush@tree> Your mailer is fine: all three things (George, Bush and bush@tree) are correct addresses. So if you do want only the last one to be taken as an address, the address should be "full name <real address>". By the way, is George Bush reachable now ? :-) A president discussing things via USENET is an example of real democracy! -- -- ###### Jos Vos ###### Internet jos@idca.tds.philips.nl ###### -- ###### ###### UUCP ...!mcvax!philapd!jos ######
wisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) (02/05/89)
>> George Bush bush@tree >Your mailer is fine: all three things (George, Bush and bush@tree) >are correct addresses. So if you do want only the last one to be >taken as an address, the address should be "full name <real address>". No. "George Bush bush@tree" is an illegal From: line. Last time I looked, messages tended to have only *ONE* From: address.. It should be George Bush <bush@tree>. Even in the context of a To: line, where multiple addresses are fine, that line is illegal. If it represents three differrent addresses, the addresses should be seperated by commas.
guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/05/89)
>No. "George Bush bush@tree" is an illegal From: line. Last time I looked, >messages tended to have only *ONE* From: address.. Well, last time I looked, which was a few seconds ago: August 13, 1982 - 17 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages ";" date-time ; time received originator = authentic ; authenticated addr [ "Reply-To" ":" 1#address] ) authentic = "From" ":" mailbox ; Single author / ( "Sender" ":" mailbox ; Actual submittor "From" ":" 1#mailbox) ; Multiple authors ; or not sender ... 4.4.1. FROM / RESENT-FROM This field contains the identity of the person(s) who wished this message to be sent. The message-creation process should default this field to be a single, authenticated machine address, indicating the AGENT (person, system or process) entering the message. If this is not done, the "Sender" field MUST be present. If the "From" field IS defaulted this way, the "Sender" field is optional and is redundant with the "From" field. In all cases, addresses in the "From" field must be machine-usable (addr-specs) and may not contain named lists (groups). so you *can* have multiple authors in a "From:" line. However, if the intent is to indicate that the sender was "George Bush", with the address "bush@tree", it is correct that >It should be George Bush <bush@tree>. and, furthermore (as explained in the description of the "n#item" metasyntax, >Even in the context of a To: line, where multiple addresses are fine, >that line is illegal. If it represents three differrent addresses, >the addresses should be seperated by commas. so if you really *were* saying the message was from "George", "Bush", and "bush@tree", the From: line should read From: George, Bush, bush@tree
gandalf@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Juergen Wagner) (02/05/89)
In article <33795@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >... >No. "George Bush bush@tree" is an illegal From: line. Last time I looked, >messages tended to have only *ONE* From: address.. RFC822 is quite clear on this. Take the example on pages 7 and 8: So, for example, the folded body of an address field ":sysmail"@ Some-Group. Some-Org, Muhammed.(I am the greatest) Ali @(the)Vegas.WBA is analyzed into the following lexical symbols and types: :sysmail quoted string @ special Some-Group atom . special Some-Org atom , special Muhammed atom . special (I am the greatest) comment Ali atom @ atom (the) comment Vegas atom . special WBA atom The canonical representations for the data in these addresses are the following strings: ":sysmail"@Some-Group.Some-Org and Muhammed.Ali@Vegas.WBA Note: For purposes of display, and when passing such struc- tured information to other systems, such as mail proto- col services, there must be NO linear-white-space between <word>s that are separated by period (".") or at-sign ("@") and exactly one SPACE between all other <word>s. Also, headers should be in a folded form. This indicates that the cited address "George Bush bush@tree" is valid. The interpretation according to RFC822 might not be the intended one, but that's a different topic. The mailer creating these addresses should be checked and corrected. It is most likely something like Dq$?x$x $.$g instead of Dq$?x$x $.<$g> in its sendmail.cf (incorrect definition of total addresses). -- Juergen Wagner gandalf@csli.stanford.edu wagner@arisia.xerox.com
ephraim@techunix.BITNET (Ephraim Silverberg) (02/09/89)
In article <7430@csli.STANFORD.EDU> gandalf@csli.UUCP (Juergen Wagner) writes: > > This indicates that the cited address "George Bush bush@tree" is valid. The > interpretation according to RFC822 might not be the intended one, but that's > a different topic. The mailer creating these addresses should be checked and > corrected. It is most likely something like > Dq$?x$x $.$g > instead of > Dq$?x$x $.<$g> > in its sendmail.cf (incorrect definition of total addresses). As the machine of the original poster (BIMACS) is a Bitnet Unix site (as is this machine), I conjecture that the origin of the incorrect (albeit officially valid) address is the infamous VM NOTE command which is notorious for producing precisely this type of 'From:' line. Other Bitnet Unix sites should note that this address problem only arose after UREP (Unix RSCS Emulation Package) 3.x, as NOTE usually arrives (unless the VM user is wide awake and sends the message with special parameters) in NETDATA format. In previous UREP [12].x versions, NETDATA arrived as garbled control characters including the header, so sendmail used the Bitnet Tag to produce its own 'From:' line which was correct (though the actual message was unreadable and usually put my terminal in APL mode). Now (UREP 3.x), the message with its incorrect 'From:' line arrives intact. Solution: Enlightened VM users should use MAIL not NOTE. Not only does MAIL produce correct headers and is in a legible format, but MAIL can send to all Bitnet-recognised domains while NOTE is only between RSCS (Remote Spooling Control Subsystem) Bitnet sites. Ephraim