Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:1104 comp.mail.uucp:1462 comp.mail.sendmail:8 comp.sources.d:2483 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!vuwcomp!duncan From: duncan@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Duncan McEwan) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.sendmail,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: routing problem with sendmail/smail Keywords: mail,smail,sendmail,route Message-ID: <13955@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Date: 14 Jul 88 01:19:00 GMT References: <589@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> <426@ncar.ucar.edu> <12545@sunybcs.UUCP> Reply-To: duncan@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Duncan McEwan) Organization: Comp Sci, Victoria Univ, Wellington, New Zealand Lines: 21 In article <12545@sunybcs.UUCP> bowen@sunybcs.UUCP (Devon E Bowen) writes: >I've got ours set up to bounce everything up to sendmail ... >... I had to do this because smail didn't update the path as it went >through us and it made us invisible to mail passing through >us. Not good when replying. I believe smail does update the uucp "From_" line and intentionally leaves the "From: " line untouched. Having smail pass the message onto sendmail for the purpose of adding your host to the front of the "From: " line is wrong. As has been rehashed in this and other groups many times before, the "From: " line should be left as a valid rfc822 "user@domain" style address. Mail user agents that do not understand rfc822 should only look at the "From_" which smail has updated for you. Sites whose mailers know about rfc822 can look at the *domain* address in the "From: " header and figure a route back to the sender -- they shouldn't need it to contain a valid path. Apologies if I have misinterpreted what Devon is saying, or if my memory of the behaviour of smail is incorrect (we no longer use it here so I can't check). Duncan