Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umix!b-tech!applga!simmons From: simmons@applga.uucp (Steve Simmons) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Mail on sunOS 4.0 Summary: no problem, actually Keywords: mush elm Message-ID: <1250@applga.UUCP> Date: 14 Jul 88 12:55:28 GMT References: <4442@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> Reply-To: simmons@applga.UUCP (Steve Simmons) Organization: Schlumberger CAD/CAM Division, Ann Arbor, MI. Lines: 50 In article <4442@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> dheller@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Heller) writes: >I just heard some very disturbing news about Mail on sunos 4.0. >[goes on to detail the problems] >I see some major problems with this new format. > 1) It's incompatible with any other mailer to date so > now all mail user agents will no longer work until > they are fixed. This includes MH, gnuemacs, elm, mush, > and, of course, the old version of Mail. I can't speak for gnuemacs or MH, but elm and mush are working just fine under 4.0. > 2) The "path" that was there, was always correct -- you > could always use that to get the return path easily > if it was incorrect in unavailable in other headers. Disagree. The 4.0 sendmail.cf does considerable fewer stupid things about reformatting mail. It has thus far proven more reliable, not less. > 3) The date that came after the path was the date that > you received the message. This is rarely the same as > the date the message was sent (via the Date: header). > I, personally, consider this unforunate because in my > mailer (Mush), you can sort messages by date sent or > date recieved as well as doing other neat things with > the date of a message. True. I'd occasionally like this feature as well. But it's no major loss. Looking at the sendmail.cf it appears a minor hack would bring back the date as you describe it. >The question is obvious: why?! [[goes on to make a point about > backwards compatibility]] My impression of the 4.0 sendmail/sendmail.cf/local mailer is that it is improved. Some of those improvements involved changing the From field, some involved making it assume the sender knew what they wanted (how...novel), and some were irrelevant (your point 3, for example). *On the whole* it's an improvement over 3.X. But much of your arguement seems to relate to backwards compatibility for 3rd party mail interfaces. If I were Sun and had to choose between backwards compatibility for freeware vs. improving my own service, it'd be a real simple choice. Now, let's get into those religious wars over mailbox formats! -- Steve Simmons Secretary, Michigan USENIX Chapter scs@lokkur.uucp