bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) (05/21/89)
mush seems to insist on adding commas to the end of addresses, so the
receiving end sees bogus addresses.
I.e., I get back messages of the form
"joe," -- no such address
Has anyone else seen this problem? If so, what do I do to fix it?
I'm running mush 6.4 of 2/14/89 on a Sun4 running SunOS 4.0.1.
Thanks,
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: bob@omni.com
UUCP: ...{amdahl,apple,tekbspa,uunet}!koosh!bobdheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Heller) (05/21/89)
In article <39@mondo.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes: > mush seems to insist on adding commas to the end of addresses, so the > receiving end sees bogus addresses. some general info: RFC822 requires using commas between addresses so as to identify them from other addresses. However, some MTAs such as /bin/mail and other older sys-v and xenix mailers don't like commas between addresses. As a result you should define NO_COMMAS in your config.h file. In this case, your system is a sun so I can't figure why you're having a problem unless you are not using sendmail -- perhaps you're using an OLD version of smail before it became rfc-compatible? > I.e., I get back messages of the form > "joe," -- no such address > Has anyone else seen this problem? If so, what do I do to fix it? I've seen this problem whenever someone is using a non-rfc compatible MTA such as smail 2.0 (or pre-3.0?). If your system is running sendmail, then you have another problem and I'd need more info (but I doubt this to be the case). Dan Heller <island!argv@sun.com>
dheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Heller) (05/22/89)
I think I made an error in this statement: > some general info: > RFC822 requires using commas between addresses so as to identify them > from other addresses. I am probably wrong about RFC822 because it might not say anything about multiple addresses on the same line. I'm at home now, so I can't check my RFC which is at work :-) However, it is certainly accepted protocol to separate addresses with commas -- sendmail requires it as well as many other RFC-compliant MTAs. The reason for this is that addresses can have multiple words in it: island!argv (Dan Heller) @ sun.com and it is all considered one address. If there is another address following it, how is any parser going to determine the end of one address and the beginning of another. Therefore, the delimeter to separate addresses can't be spaces. Commas are used. This interferes with a valid addressing scheme that Bart and I call "weird" addresses because altho they are legal, they are inconvenient because they contain commas. e.g. a legal address might look like: @host.dom.ain,@cad.berkeley.edu:argv@island.uucp Here, the hostnames are separated by commas, but if you try to use this address in any mail user agent, then it will probably break because the commas are the address delimeters. Sometimes, mush parses a folder that has this style of address in the From_ line (check any mail that comes out of toranto :-). Mush knows that there is one and only one address in the From_ line, so it knows how to parse that address correctly. What it does is convert it to a more reasonable type of address (@-format, unless you've configured mush with UUCP defined). Dan Heller <island!argv@sun.com>
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (05/23/89)
In article <14033@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> dheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Heller) writes: >I think I made an error in this statement: ... >> some general info: >> RFC822 requires using commas between addresses so as to identify them >> from other addresses. ... >I am probably wrong about RFC822 because it might not say anything about >multiple addresses on the same line. I'm at home now, so I can't check >my RFC which is at work :-) However, it is certainly accepted protocol >to separate addresses with commas -- sendmail requires it as well as many >other RFC-compliant MTAs. The reason for this is that addresses can have >multiple words in it: > island!argv (Dan Heller) @ sun.com Comma's *are* required ... >This interferes with a valid addressing scheme that Bart and I call >"weird" addresses because altho they are legal, they are inconvenient >because they contain commas. e.g. a legal address might look like: > @host.dom.ain,@cad.berkeley.edu:argv@island.uucp Actually you're required to put <>'s around that construct -- I suppose to hide the "," from being seen by an address parser. What I wonder is why they wanted to use comma's here in the first place? It's as clear to use :'s where they want to use comma's. -- <- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <- By all accounts, Cyprus (or was it Crete?) was covered with trees at one time <- -- Until they discovered Bronze
comp-mail-mush@srhqla.uucp (05/23/89)
From: "Barton E. Schaefer" <island!ucbcad!ogccse.ogc.edu!schaefer> In article <14033@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> you write: } I think I made an error in this statement: } } > some general info: } > RFC822 requires using commas between addresses so as to identify them } > from other addresses. } } I am probably wrong about RFC822 because it might not say anything about } multiple addresses on the same line. I'm at home now, so I can't check Dan was correct. From RFC822, section 2 (Notational Conventions), page 4: 2.7. #RULE: LISTS A construct "#" is defined ... as follows: <l>#<m>element indicating at least <l> and and most <m> elements, each separated by one or more commas (","). .... And from section 4.1 (Message Specification, Syntax), page 18: destination = "To" ":" 1#address ; Primary / "Resent-To" .... Therefore a "To:" field has at least one and at most an unspecified number of addresses, separated by one or more commas. } The reason for this is that addresses can have } multiple words in it: } island!argv (Dan Heller) @ sun.com } and it is all considered one address. I might point out that mush itself wouldn't understand the example Dan gave there unless it were fully RFC822-compliant, which means it has to be in <> as in: <island!argv (Dan Heller) @ sun.com> and even then I wouldn't guarantee mush will figure it out in all cases (though the ones where it fails are largely cosmetic, such as doing autosigns and alternates). } This interferes with a valid addressing scheme that Bart and I call } "weird" addresses because altho they are legal, they are inconvenient } because they contain commas. e.g. a legal address might look like: } @host.dom.ain,@cad.berkeley.edu:argv@island.uucp Actually, *I* call them "stupid". :-) Sendmail doesn't seem to like <> on its From_ lines, so it strips them out. To make this "legal", you have to put <> around it, just like the one with the comment in the middle that was given above. <> has higher precedence than commas. } Dan Heller <island!argv@sun.com> ^ ^ ! ! -- Bart Schaefer "And if you believe that, you'll believe anything." -- DangerMouse CSNET / Internet schaefer@cse.ogc.edu UUCP ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (05/23/89)
In article <663@srhqla.UUCP> comp-mail-mush@srhqla.uucp writes:
) 2.7. #RULE: LISTS
)
) A construct "#" is defined ... as follows:
)
) <l>#<m>element
)
) indicating at least <l> and and most <m> elements, each separated
) by one or more commas (","). ....
)
)And from section 4.1 (Message Specification, Syntax), page 18:
)
) destination = "To" ":" 1#address ; Primary
) / "Resent-To" ....
)
)Therefore a "To:" field has at least one and at most an unspecified
)number of addresses, separated by one or more commas.
The problem I had with Sys V mail(1) as an MTA with Mush 6.4 a while
back was that Mush seemed to be APPENDING a comma even to a SINGLE
address! I.e. 'mush joe' yielded an error message from mail(1)
saying 'Unknown address "joe,"'. I switched to Smail 2.5 and the
problem went away, possibly because Smail is nicer. I didn't look
too hard, had enough other problems in my life. :-)
I don't think a singleton of the form "joe," fits the above
syntax rule, do you?
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETschaefer@ogccse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (05/24/89)
In article <14340@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: } In article <663@srhqla.UUCP> schaefer@cse.ogc.edu (Bart Schaefer) writes: } ) } ) <l>#<m>element } ) } ) indicating at least <l> and and most <m> elements, each separated } ) by one or more commas (","). .... } ) } ) destination = "To" ":" 1#address ; Primary } } The problem I had with Sys V mail(1) as an MTA with Mush 6.4 a while } back was that Mush seemed to be APPENDING a comma even to a SINGLE } address! I.e. 'mush joe' yielded an error message from mail(1) } saying 'Unknown address "joe,"'. I don't remember for certain any more, but I believe there may have been a bug in 6.4 that caused trailing commas to be left in the addresses in certain cases. I believe it had something to do with using "replyall". } I don't think a singleton of the form "joe," fits the above } syntax rule, do you? The paragraph in section 2.7 about the # rule continues: ... Wherever this construct is used, null elements are allowed, but do not contribute to the count of elements present. That is, "(element),,(element)" is permitted, but counts as only two elements. Therefore, where at least one ele- ment is required, at least one non-null element must be present. ... So apparently "joe," or even ",,joe,,," fits the rule. Nevertheless, it *was* considered a bug that mush appended an extra comma, and as far as I can tell this has been fixed. -- Bart Schaefer "And if you believe that, you'll believe anything." -- DangerMouse CSNET / Internet schaefer@cse.ogc.edu UUCP ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer