Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2A (XREF PATCH) 05/16/85; site neuro1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!neuro1!sob
From: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.mail,net.bugs.uucp
Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding expansion of mail's metacharacters
Message-ID: <560@neuro1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 11:39:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: neuro1.560
Posted: Tue Aug 20 11:39:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 00:30:50 EDT
References: <1391@cbosgd.UUCP> <2637@sun.uucp> <1043@sdcsvax.UUCP> <138@maynard.UUCP>
Reply-To: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Followup-To: net.mail.headers
Organization: Neurophysiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:14457 net.mail:1058 net.bugs.uucp:579

This seems more like a discussion for net.mail.headers....

In article <138@maynard.UUCP> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
> Conceptually, the mail
>command line is the "envelope", containing delivery instructions.  The
>message header lines are part of the message, ignored by intermediate
>delivery agents, and used only by the final recipient.  (I'm speaking
>simplistically and ideally here...)
>
>To avoid shell metacharacter expansion, we just need to add an "envelope"
>portion of the message that contains delivery instructions.  The "To:"
>field in the message is for the recipient's benefit only;  the envelope
>portion would control delivery actions.
>
>
>Larry Campbell                     

Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding of headers (from the RFC 822
point of view, at least), is that they form the envelope of the message
and the "To:" line is for the benefit of the mailer as well
as the recipient. The uux command line is generated from data contained in
the header (on my systems, at least).

I also think that it is a bit naive to assume that any site will
just forward a message without "looking" at it. This implies that
systems will look at the "To:" line before forwarding. 

Now, I am not advocating that all sites be RFC822-compliant, but many are
and will continue to be. I am mearly pointing out that the "To:" field is
not ignorable for anyone wishing to route messages through sites that
are RFC-822 compatable.



-- 
Stan		uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob     Opinions expressed
Olan		ARPA:sob@rice.arpa		       here are ONLY mine &
Barber		CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)660-9262      noone else's.