Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site erix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!mcvax!enea!erix!per From: per@erix.UUCP (Per Hedeland) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: mailers munging return addresses Message-ID: <279@erix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 10:40:58 EST Article-I.D.: erix.279 Posted: Wed Feb 22 10:40:58 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Feb-84 02:45:58 EST References: <655@nsc.UUCP> <2559@fortune.UUCP> Organization: L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden Lines: 41 <> While RFC 886 is interesting (imagine, a standard for munging!), it doesn't seem to give much help in the current situation. I don't think the problem with the 'From:' lines is the fault of 4.2 sendmail, but rather of the sites *not* running it, which don't understand the RFC 822 standard (or shouldn't we adopt it? hmmm...) As you have noticed, these sites don't prepend their name to the contents of the 'From:' line, rather they prepend the 'From ... remote from "site"' line to the message, hopefully making at least the 'From ' line(s) in the message you receive correct. (But be warned: sendmail, and 4.2 rmail, munges this line too, so there are no guarantees...) Granted that this situation will exist for a while, the real problem is: Which line ('From:' or 'From ') does your mailer use for a reply? If your mail system doesn't understand the 'From:' line, it certainly shouldn't use it for replies! (E g 4.1 Mail uses 'From ', 4.2 Mail uses 'From:'.) That leaves us poor 4.2 users (and others?) whose replies keep bouncing... I can see two (maybe three) possible solutions: 1) Edit the message (e g deleting or distorting the 'From:' line) before replying. (Ugly, quite impossible to present to the user community.) 2) Use the wonderful flexibility of sendmail, modifying the .cf file to make it, at local delivery, a) Drop the 'From:' line completely or b) Turn it into something unrecognizeable ('Apparently-From:' ?). The solutions in 2) both have the drawback that this modifification must be reverted at some future time (when?), and that they may have unwanted side- effects (which?). (Not mentioning that tampering with the .cf file always gives me the creeps - I'm not even 100% sure that these modifications are possible!) Comments, anyone? Per Hedeland ..{decvax, philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!per or per@erix.UUCP PS. Of course this problem will go away when we all use domain addressing! :-)