pep@down.FUN (02/19/85)
Why did this mail fail?
From ace Mon Feb 18 10:39:57 1985
Received: by mind.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
id AA00717; Mon, 18 Feb 85 10:39:48 est
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 85 10:39:48 est
From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail
To: ace
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 down!pep... Unbalanced '(': Bad file number
554 down!pep... Unbalanced '(': Bad file number
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by mind.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
id AA00715; Mon, 18 Feb 85 10:39:48 est
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 85 10:39:48 est
From: ace (Counseling Program Project (rec)
Message-Id: <8502181539.AA00715@mind.UUCP>
To: down!pep
<message>
Strong hint: What's wrong with this line from a 4.2 /etc/passwd?
ace:*:146:11:Counseling Program Project (rec,mab):/u1/ace:/bin/csh
Oh, that's right - sendmail extracts the string for "From:" from the fifth
field in /etc/passwd, but apparently only the first 31 characters. Then
sendmail coddles the string in a set of parentheses. But what have we here?
An extra left parenthesis on the "From:" line? Well, that will never do.
Stomp on this message! Stomp on every message this poor user tries to send!
I really wanted to submit this to net.bugs.sendmail. Now that honey danber
has been released, isn't net.bugs.uucp obsolete?
Pat Parseghian
Princeton Univ. EECSpiet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (02/21/85)
>Now that honey danber has been released, isn't net.bugs.uucp obsolete?
Far from that: until AT&T changes its price policy re honey danber uucp,
net.bugs.uucp will thrive.
And if they do?
"There's always one more bug", remember?
So we'll need a new group: net.bugs.honey_danber_uucp ....
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet