Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!mjb
From: mjb@ukc.UUCP (M.J.Bayliss)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Strange From headers
Message-ID: <4097@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 06:45:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.4097
Posted: Thu Feb 16 06:45:03 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 13:11:10 EST
References: <215@heurikon.UUCP>
Organization: Computing Lab. Kent University, England
Lines: 39

This is a sendmail problem and it's not just restricted to the sites named
in the original article (ukc also generates the same problem).

What happens (as far as i can work out) is:

	sendmail generates an UGLYUUCP from line

	to find the sitename to put in the "remote from...." it
	takes the first component of the $g macro

	but... $g is not always correct!

Sites that cause this problem are not adding their own sitename onto
the sender's address at the right place. I've spent two days examining
trace output from sendmail and as far as i can tell $g is continually
reset as the sender address is modified (rulesets 3, 1, 4 and the uucp
mailer sender ruleset). This should be an easy bug to fix but...

When I wrote my sendmail.cf I found I had to use the uucp ruleset to
put "ukc!" on the front of the sender's name, if I didn't sendmail complained
because there was no "!" in the sender. Following the same logic I should
just need to put "ukc!" at the start of every sender's name that goes through
the uucp ruleset. However, this doesn't work and $g does not include the
"ukc!", but does contain the full uucp route upto and including the
sender's site.

I suspect it's because we're all trying to be too clever, and getting
carried away converting everything in sight into "user@site.net" triples.

Are there any sendmail experts out there? Is Eric Allman reading this?
I for one would appreciate help just to stop sites adjacent to me complaining.

	mike bayliss	University of Kent.
		...!{vax135,mcvax}!ukc!mjb

P.S. no flames telling me I should use standard configuration files,
I'm trying to cope with a local network of 8 systems (2 different mail
protocols) and two wide area networks (2 different mail protocols and 2
different naming conventions).