From: wusel@hactar.hanse.de (Kai 'wusel' Siering)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:10:47 +0100
Organization: Villa Straylight, Hamburg, FRG
Newsgroups: alt.sys.amiga.uucp
Subject: Re: Bug in sendmail/rmail (DUUCP)
 <111292t0438@hamburg.uucp> <mbs.1ga7@adastra.cvl.va.us>
X-Newsreader: Ann 0.10 PL2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article <mbs.1ga7@adastra.cvl.va.us>, mbs@adastra.cvl.va.us (Michael B. Smith) writes:
% In article <111292t0438@hamburg.uucp> wusel@hactar.hanse.de (Kai 'wusel' Siering) writes:
% > In article <mbs.1fjb@adastra.cvl.va.us>, Michael B. Smith writes:
% > % In article <091292f0137@hamburg.uucp> wusel@hactar.hanse.de (Kai 'wusel' Siering) writes:
% > % >      RMail assumes the envelope in `From_' is always a bang-path which may
% > % > or may not be true; especially in common BSMTP implementations this is NOT
% > % > the case:
% > % >
% > % > From pfm.rmt.sub.org!@public.gup-wi.gup-bn.UUCP:uhf.saar.de!ramsey.saar.de!torstenb@flatlin.ka.sub.org Fri, 4 Dec 92 21:31:59 CEST
%
% > `@hosta,@hostb,...:user@hostc' ...  The above address is `the worst of all
% > worlds' :) :( You can interpret it as (I'll leave the domains out)
% >
% >    public!pfm!flatlin!uhf!ramsey!torstenb
% >    pfm!public!flatlin!uhf!ramsey!torstenb
% >    flatlin!public!uhf!ramsey!torstenb!pfm
% >
% > (I'm not sure about the precedences; the second is the intended one.)
%
% As I read the RFC, the second would be the appropriate way to apply the
% precedences.

     Althought it may be hard to resolve the beast correctly =:-> The `:'
unfortunatly also has the meaning of `!' (obsolete BERKNET addressing
style, I think), thus you can't be certain what it means =:-< And last but
not least, a RFC (976?) states that hybrid adresseses should be avoided
...

% > BTW, sendmail converts it to:
% >
% >    type MF class UU addr pfm!public ROUTE public.gup-wi.gup-bn.UUCP!pfm.rmt.sub.org!!flatllin.ka.sub.org!uhf.saar.de!ramsey.saar.de!torstenb
% >
% > (Note the `!!' =:->)
%
% It's close.  :)

And bounces (`!flatllin.ka.sub...: no such user') =;->

% I don't see anything immediately wrong with the domain.c code, in terms of
% placing them in the correct order. I believe that sendmail just needs to do
% the path conversion a little bit earlier than it currently does.

Maybe; no time to investigate this, sorry.

% > % I would also point out that the From envelope is supposed to be for
% > % informational purposes, and never used for building a return address.
% >
% >      Sorry, but that isn't the truth: the envelope address is used to
% > return failure notifications (like `user unknown' aso.) and that's why I
% > posted this bug. Especially in case of mailing list, mailservers, etc. it
% > would be really annoying to have bounces go to the orginator of the
% > message instead of an administrator's account.
%
% No offense, but where does it say that? This is what I see from RFC-821

     No offense taken =:-> Can't say wheter it's written down anywhere,
but it's the common way of sending failure messages ... Well, I remember
821 stating something about a reverse-path of "<>" to prevent error
messages being sent ...

% talking about Return-Path, and no discussion at all about Path (page 19
% I think , 4.3.1):
[...]

I'll take i deeper look into 821 later today,
			kai

--  _
 _ //   Kai 'wusel' Siering, Villa Straylight, Hamburg, Germany. Go for MIME!
 \X/: <wusel@hactar.hanse.de>  Exile: <wusel@wolfhh.hanse.de>  iso-8859-1: 

              /away 18.12.1992 - 04.01.1993 (Phone: +49-4755-648)

"Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or, for the TV generation, Klingon) high
command. Whoever takes action and can be heard wins."
                                          -- Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>